|
Post by Figgles on Nov 10, 2018 21:42:07 GMT
Here you are surmising about the existence of multiple perspectives. Again, it appears that there are, but turns out, you just don't know for certain based upon the experience of such, even though it is indeed VERY compelling. So it seems. If perception = creation, then the moon actually does 'disappear' when you turn away. If it's not being perceived, it's not appearing, not 'created.' The moon is created each and every time it is perceived. That what no 'objective' reality means. The very idea of 'co-creation' hinges upon the assumption of multiple perception points. Again, you just don't know about that beyond what you see/experience. And, if the moon is not the same moon when you turn around, at what point did it change? You seem to be suggesting that even when you turned around the 1st time, the moon was still there....and then when you look a 2nd time, it is a different moon. So does the moon actually remain present, up there in the sky that you are no longer looking at, when you are no longer perceiving it, or not? "Continuity" is itself built into the story/experience. It too is an appearance. However, if you get very quiet and look at what's actually going on, what you actually can know/see in each given moment, so much of 'the story' you entertain and engage with, is 'assumed.' Seeing that is incredibly important. It's those assumptions that cause so much of the trouble. And it might not seem that way when it's a simple assumption that the moon continues to exist even though I can't see it, but when it comes to other stuff we assume/imagine/take for granted, such as our judgments about a situation that leave us all tied up in knots, the importance of seeing that other than what appears right here, right now, I cannot say for certain that some-thing actually "Is", hits home. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=8442#ixzz5WUQ5IMMs[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 10, 2018 21:58:26 GMT
Again. There is no context mix. You're doing what Andrew does. Speaking as though one lives their life from two different contexts. There is a point where transcendent seeing takes over. One still engages with the personal perspective, but it's all seen for what is, it's all been seen through, thus, one never goes back to arguing for moons that continue to be created beyond the perception of a moon. There is clarity re: Perception = creation...that 'the world arises within Being.'
The seeing that perception = creation, just like the seeing that all experiential content is empty of Truth, does not result in imaginings that houses disintegrate when I'm not looking at them, nor does it result in treating the appearance of sentience as though it is not appearing. That's ridiculous, poopy pants, dufus guy argument.
Indeed, the dream continues to unfold, often in precisely the same manner it did prior to see it as a dream. And engagement with the content of the dream also continues on....why not? It would take a lot of effort to buck that current.
The difference is, that now we see it is all a dream/story, we are seeing it all with crystal clarity. We see what is being surmised, what is being imagined, what is being assumed vs. what is "actually" appearing.
All of the imaginings, assumed knowledge, filling in the blanks that goes on in mind amounts to a whole lotta baggage. When that's no longer there, being 'present to the moment' takes over, and in that, Peace makes itself known.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 10, 2018 22:13:16 GMT
One need not have any reference at all for an impersonal perspective to see that absent direct perception of the moon, they cannot say for certain that it continues to appear. It's not a context mix. The most self identified of seekers can see that absent direct awareness of something, they cannot accurately say it "IS."
Again, you present this idea that life is lived from two different vantage points, each mutually exclusive of the other. There really is a point where the transcendent perspective takes over.
Gopal is not saying that he knows his family ceases to carry on activities. He's actually saying 'he does not know' because he does not have awareness of such.
"knowing" = 'awareness of.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 10, 2018 22:26:43 GMT
Yes. When we break reality down into each present, incremental moment, it can be seen that what is 'actually' appearing in perception is miniscule compared to all the stuff that is assumed in the 'supporting story.'
The argument is not constantly changing, you are just not grasping what's actually being said.
The point of perception as 'associated' with the appearing form, also pertains to what can be seen in a given moment, but indeed, that association also has ramifications for the ongoing 'story.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 10, 2018 22:33:02 GMT
No certain knowing of "aliveness"
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 10, 2018 22:41:18 GMT
All depends upon how you define 'exist.'
The way some use that term it could indeed be said that an 'imagined moon' has existence. But that is different from actual direct awareness/perception of a moon.
And sounds as though you too believe that if there is but one point of perception, then that necessarily means 'a personal god'? if so, you are actually demonstrating that like Andrew, you too personalize 'point of perception.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 4:42:18 GMT
Well, If we are using that definition, if there IS in fact such a reality, you don't/can't know anything for certain about it. It remains a surmising/assumption. "If" there is some-thing, an object, thing, appearance, circumstance, experience, appearing 'beyond perception' how the heck could you know of it? The only way 'appearance/experience' is known to be, is via perception/direct experience of 'it'. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=8443#ixzz5WW9eFG1p
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 4:50:19 GMT
Yes. The deepest wisdom is in seeing that we 'don't know' shit. Those who insist that they know for certain that appearing people are in fact 'alive, sentient, experiencing, consious, etc.' are fools. And, the 'how's and why's' of their knowing, only reinforce that.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 5:07:00 GMT
I've said many times, there are indeed, real consequences to seeing the inherent emptiness of Truth in ALL appearances, (of course including the appearance of people); freedom from the entrenchment of buying into the story/dream...freedom from being immersed within it, swept up in the drama of it all.
Every-thing you are talking about there, IS from the perspective of 'person.' Seth's teachings are mostly from the personal perspective. There is very little address there that isn't talking about dream content.
Contrast those teachings with Niz or Ramana. Talk of 'what' a beetle experiences vs a human?
Niz...Ramana, Those are nonduality teachings. Seth is 'dream content' supposing to come from 'beyond the dream' but because it deals almost exclusively with knowings about how the dream content works, by virtue of that, it too is in fact, nothing more than more dreaming/story-telling.
Why is it you've resorted to yet another 'teacher' to tell you what IS?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 5:42:11 GMT
|
|