|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 5:50:51 GMT
Sooooo...if 'what you are' cannot be described, except by total negation, wouldn't that also apply to 'the nature of all that is'? So what the heck is all this talk of "I have realized it's all alive, conscious, perceiving, vibrant, experiencing'? Dat don't sound like a 'negation'. what up Birdie?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 12:36:39 GMT
Funny how the not-knowers know at least one thing for certain -- that some foe of theirs is full of shit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 14:50:33 GMT
Funny how the not-knowers know at least one thing for certain -- that some foe of theirs is full of shit If the 'person', such as, oh, let's say, Trump, is merely an appearance that is completely, and un-b-effinglingly full of shit, then who cares? Yes, who cares? is a great question, maybe even the greatest question one can ask.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 16:05:44 GMT
Funny how the not-knowers know at least one thing for certain -- that some foe of theirs is full of shit That Reefs is full of shit, is just another appearing facet of the story-line. I wouldn't say it's a certain knowing at all...just what seems to be, just what i see, based upon what I am hearing him say.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 16:11:00 GMT
If the 'person', such as, oh, let's say, Trump, is merely an appearance that is completely, and un-b-effinglingly full of shit, then who cares? Yes, who cares? is a great question, maybe even the greatest question one can ask. Assuming identification with a separate volitional person is involved, sure. A good question. However... Even after seeing through any and all 'who/what's,' some degree of caring with regards to the dream content, continues. This is what folks seem to be having trouble grasping; that seeing the dream for a dream does not mean the end of all engagement with, all caring 'about' the stuff happening and appearing within the dream. Indeed, the depth of engagement is lessened, as one is no longer 'lost to' or 'immersed fully' within the dream, but there seems to be this misconceived idea that 'if' there is interest, caring, then that somehow indicates identification with a separate volitional person. It doesn't. Post SR there are still things that will be regarded as 'more important' or 'more interesting' than other things, there will still be likes and dislikes, there will still be engagement with the unfolding story and there will still be some degree of 'caring' about all that.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 11, 2018 16:22:17 GMT
'looking from the body' is experiential. Looking/seeing absent an object, absent an identifiable 'who/that' that looks, is realizational, transcendent. Seems all you can do is speak from the experiential/personal pov...? Yeah, nothing actually looks through a body, as there isn't a body beyond the appearance of such. The looking/seeing happens via the point of perception in Consciousness. None of this has anything to do with persons.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 17:39:26 GMT
So, non-conceptual "no separation" is not enough of an 'intimate connection' for you? Clearly then, when you use that term 'intimate connection' you are talking about something more...something tangible.....a connection that is known experientially? If so, please remember; All experiential content is absent Truth.
If there are in fact multiple perspectives, then there is no separation between any of them. But that does not mean that right here, right now, you can tell me the picture hanging on the wall behind me. That inability to tell me, in this moment, whether you like it or not, does denote a distinction between 'what' you perceive vs. what I perceive.
That 'beginning/ending' you insist cannot be there, that momentary demonstration of distinction between pop's, is inherent in your ability to tell me what pic is on your wall, but not mine.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 18:10:11 GMT
Because he knows that 'looking through eyes' is itself just an appearance...and like all appearances, that too, is absent Truthiness, as compelling an appearance as it may be.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 18:42:36 GMT
So, why exactly have you adopted Seth's terminology? Ah, this is where you go wrong. Prior to manifestation, there is no 'what.' "Ocean" is but a pointer, not a reference to an actual 'thing/body of water.' The 'wave' does not exist in it's own right. It's an arising within the Ocean. Absent the foundation of Ocean, no wave. The wave is entiretly dependent upon the Ocean, that which lies fundamental. It has no 'reality/actuality' of it's own. When you say, "whatever manifests in whatever form" is as real as it gets because it arises within the Ocean, you are suggesting that there is a 'what' prior to the appearing form. There isn't. There is no 'something' that then manifests into an appearance of something else. This is why metaphors often break down and can only point. What is 'real' then, using your definition, is that which the appearances arises within....that which the appearance is an 'extention of'.... That which appears within 'that', which extends from 'that', is indeed not separate from it, but that in no way means that 'whatever manifests' therefore exists in it's own right. Absent the appearing 'wave' you wouldn't even be talking about it being 'Ocean.' In order for you to designate the wave as 'real' because it's an extention of that which is real, you have to first perceive a wave. Now you want to pretend the wave never appeared. It did 'cause you're talking about 'what it actually is.' The wave is an appearance within the Ocean...is not separate from the ocean, but the wave per se, is not exactly the same as the ocean, it is an appearing 'distinction'. Absent that distinction, we're just talking about the Ocean. Distinctions though, don't disappear just because we see them to be empty. So long as experience continues, distinction continues. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=8449#ixzz5WZWx6H1e
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 11, 2018 19:06:21 GMT
Yes, and like that 'conceptualization' your insistence that 'it's all alive' is also a conceptualization. "Source" cannot be apprehended with words, talk, concepts. Pointers only. You would not be arguing for 'it's all alive' if you were merely pointing. An idea you have about systems, cannot by virtue of being an idea, actually BE Truth. No one is 'discarding' appearances, just suggesting that all of 'em are absent Truthiness. The experience continues to be of 'brains, shifts in function, nervous systems, etc.' but it is important to see all of that as 'experiential content' vs. Truth. You seem yourself to be conflating the two. You think that because you see ___________to hold the property of 'intelligent energy' that therefore, each appearance that manifests, it's holds that property. Again, you are assigning property to that which can only be pointed to. Can you see that? But the fact that it IS a concept, means it does not fulfill the definition of 'Truth realization.' Absent some-thing actually appearing, the need to make up the word 'wave' would not have arisen. We cannot both acknowledge and deny that which appears. All of that, but pointing to the ineffable. You've taken that which can only be pointed at, and conceptuali=ized it. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=8449#ixzz5WZe6Utvx
|
|