|
Post by Figgles on Mar 26, 2021 2:07:10 GMT
Enjoyment of intellectualizing is not a problem. Gopal's issue isn't that he 'enjoys intellectualizing,' it's that he hasn't yet realized that Truth can not be worked out through intellectualizing. There is a vast difference between the two....you and many others seem to conflate thinking/conceptualizing/intellectualizing with bondage and that's a fallacy. Thought per se, doesn't bind. mistaking thought for Truth, does.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 26, 2021 2:30:09 GMT
Yes, what you really/fundamentally are defies all conception...all imaginings.
The latter bolded bit then, contradicts the former. A 'field of all being, seen or unseen,' = 'that which is imagined.' Truth is always that which IS...here, now....always present/imminent, not something that exists 'out there...beyond.'
ALL being? What does that mean? In terms of what can be known for absolute certain, there is but One, singular Being....is there some 'other' Being that you somehow know about? By what means?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 3, 2021 19:43:50 GMT
He is on a forum that professes to root out what is 'actually' so, asking the question;
Surely, it's obvious he's asking "ultimately, do you know for certain?"
Isn't that what it's all about...seeking...the quest for what is Truth? The question 'what is actually true...what can actually be known for certain'? And in that, we come to see that ultimately, regardless of story content/relative knowings, we actually know very little and for the most part, 'not knowing' reigns.
To acknowledge that relative knowledge about bodies that continue to appear when they are not appearing = assumption/surmising, and that no relative sense of knowing = 'knowing for absolute certain,' is not a 'dismissal' of the relative/personal/material.
Again, the question is being asked on a nonduality forum. It's a question that seeks to root out 'what is actually so.' It's odd you'd use that term "clearly" to talk about relative knowings within the dream....that are actually assumptive knowings. There is no direct experience of a sleeping body, unless a sleeping body is appearing. That means even relatively speaking, the sleeping body is assumed/surmised.
Not sure why you use the term 'existential' there to qualify contexts... What does that mean?
There are not 'two different contexts,' to Gopal's question; He's asking about what is actually known.
In looking at 'what is actually true,' which is a question that spans both relative as well as absolute knowing, it's seen that the relative knowledge of a body appearing in a bed, when a body in bed is not arising/appearing in consciousness, involves surmising/assumption.
There is a clarity that addresses BOTH the relative context and the Ultimate/Absolute; Appearances can be said to be appearing, when they ARE presently appearing, and all appearances are inherently empty of Absolute Truth.
To see and say that there is no direct knowing of the appearing body fast asleep, and that a sleeping body is surmsied, does not equal a denial of the idea of a body appearing in bed and the role that plays in sequential experience.
Indeed surmising/assumption does play a role in the experience of a sequentially unfolding story and even relatively speaking, it's important to see where that happens and where it doesn't...it's called 'being conscious....being clear....being conscious of WIBIGO.' And that's what's involved in being the 'mature adult' McKenna speaks of.
Do you not see though that while the idea of a body that continues to appear in a bed does indeed play a role in the experience of going to bed and waking up with a sense of having slept, that in terms of relative knowledge, what is appearing/arising and what is not, there is a great deal of surmising that goes on there?
While fast asleep, if a slumbering body is not appearing, then obviously, when you say there is relative knowing of a body asleep, that's a different kind of knowing than when you are sitting on a chair and you say, 'there is a body, sat on a chair.' In the latter case, there is direct experience of a body sat on a chair. In the former, the body appearing in an appearing bed, is surmised/assumed only.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 6, 2021 8:06:08 GMT
He is on a forum that professes to root out what is 'actually' so, asking the question; Surely, it's obvious he's asking " ultimately, do you know for certain?" Isn't that what it's all about...seeking...the quest for what is Truth? The question 'what is actually true...what can actually be known for certain'? And in that, we come to see that ultimately, regardless of story content/relative knowings, we actually know very little and for the most part, 'not knowing' reigns. Read the question again. Is it, or is it not a question about appearances? Is it, or is it not a question about knowledge and how to know? To acknowledge that relative knowledge about bodies that continue to appear when they are not appearing = assumption/surmising, and that no relative sense of knowing = 'knowing for absolute certain,' is not a 'dismissal' of the relative/personal/material. He literally dismissed the relative explanation. Again, the question is being asked on a nonduality forum. It's a question that seeks to root out 'what is actually so.' It's odd you'd use that term "clearly" to talk about relative knowings within the dream....that are actually assumptive knowings. There is no direct experience of a sleeping body, unless a sleeping body is appearing. That means even relatively speaking, the sleeping body is assumed/surmised. Is it somehow unclear to you that you and I are two different people? Not sure why you use the term 'existential' there to qualify contexts... What does that mean? Read the question again. Was it or was it not a question about existence? There are not 'two different contexts,' to Gopal's question; He's asking about what is actually known. You're morphing and re-interpreting gopal's question, which mixed the notions of existence with the notion of appearances, knowledge, and how to know. In looking at 'what is actually true,' which is a question that spans both relative as well as absolute knowing, it's seen that the relative knowledge of a body appearing in a bed, when a body in bed is not arising/appearing in consciousness, involves surmising/assumption. There is a clarity that addresses BOTH the relative context and the Ultimate/Absolute; Appearances can be said to be appearing, when they ARE presently appearing, and all appearances are inherently empty of Absolute Truth. To see and say that there is no direct knowing of the appearing body fast asleep, and that a sleeping body is surmsied, does not equal a denial of the idea of a body appearing in bed and the role that plays in sequential experience. Indeed surmising/assumption does play a role in the experience of a sequentially unfolding story and even relatively speaking, it's important to see where that happens and where it doesn't...it's called 'being conscious....being clear....being conscious of WIBIGO.' And that's what's involved in being the 'mature adult' McKenna speaks of. Do you not see though that while the idea of a body that continues to appear in a bed does indeed play a role in the experience of going to bed and waking up with a sense of having slept, that in terms of relative knowledge, what is appearing/arising and what is not, there is a great deal of surmising that goes on there? While fast asleep, if a slumbering body is not appearing, then obviously, when you say there is relative knowing of a body asleep, that's a different kind of knowing than when you are sitting on a chair and you say, 'there is a body, sat on a chair.' In the latter case, there is direct experience of a body sat on a chair. In the former, the body appearing in an appearing bed, is surmised/assumed only. Yes, the suggestion that he could know his body "existed" while he was sleeping by asking his wife or reviewing a video of it is 2nd-hand, indirect knowledge, but there's no assumption involved - other that perhaps, his wife would tell him the truth and the camera worked. The feeling of being well-rested or not, while also indirect knowledge of the time asleep, is first hand, in the present. You could say that the conclusion that you feel well rested because you got some sleep is an assumption, but that would be TMT, and the assumption can be confirmed by looking at a clock. I'm not saying that the clock + the feeling are direct, first-hand knowledge of the body while you're sleeping, but in the relative context, it's the simplest, less-thought-filled explanation for WIBIGO.
You ignored and didn't quote the 2nd part of my reply to gopal's question, the one in which I differentiated relative knowledge of appearances ("existence of the body"), and "existence" in the context of the existential truth. In the existential truth, the body has no separate existence apart from what the mind contrives as the boundary between the body and what it is not. Gopal's question mixed the context of what you like to refer to as the "Truth", and what you like to think of as "the dream", and noting the two different possible meanings of "exist" untangles that.
Where does your body end, and what is not your body, begin?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 7, 2021 20:22:05 GMT
Read the question again. Is it, or is it not a question about appearances? Is it, or is it not a question about knowledge and how to know? It's a question about knowing about appearances that comes from a place of having a refined definition of what it is to 'really' know something vs. just surmise/assume. It's coming from the same place as Jed Mckenna when he speaks about the importance of the question 'what is true,' or the same place as Niz when he says: "Is there a world outside your knowledge? Can you go beyond what you know? You may postulate a world beyond the mind, but it will remain a concept, unproved and unprovable. Your experience is your proof, and it is valid for you only. Who else can have your experience, when the other person is only as real as he appears in your experience?" Both Jed and Niz (and Gopal) are asking folks to look 'beyond' the Joe consensus trance view, where sleeping bodies are deemed to be appearing, even though they are not appearing. Because his question went beyond the Joe consensus trance version of the story of sleeping bodies in a bed. I'm quite sure he doesn't completely dismiss the idea that upon awakening in the morn, 'he/Gopal' slept. Your own explanation was dismissive of the surmising/assuming that figures into the story of sleeping bodies in a bed, when there is no direct experience (no appearance of a body in a bed). I don't get what that has to do with the surmising that happens re: sleeping bodies in beds. Fwiw, there's also a whole lot of surmising/inferring that happens when I assume you to be something more than a distinct point of view I engage with on forum, when/as I engage with you. There's an experience of a me talking to a you as I read words/ideas on a screen and respond to them. It's happening here and now...imminently, that's how I can say "I know there's an experience of two distinct viewpoints being shared/compared."
It's important to see just how much is assumed in day to day experience, if clarity is valued and because a deeply sleeping body is not experienced directly/imminently/presently, whether we're speaking from the relative viewpoint or beyond, it's not actually known.
"Actually known" has a very specific meaning in the context of seeing beyond the consensus trance. And again, seeing beyond the consensus trance is not the equivalent of awakening/SR. Not necessarily no. It's a question of 'what do I actually know" that spans the relative and beyond. The existential Truth that nothing that appears is separate from that which abides, but arises dependently upon it, need not be realized for one to look and see that much of what he thinks he knows for certain, is assumed/surmised....that unless something is experienced directly, is appearing NOW, we're talking assumptive knowledge only. That's what "Human adulthood" involves; Becoming clear on what it means to "actually" know....being conscious as to WIBIGO. I guess you could say; "redefining our definition of knowing" relative to Truth seeking is key when it comes to even in the dream clarity/waking up to the consensus trance. That's why so many spiritual teachers say the most important question a seeker can begin to ask is 'what do I know for certain.' It's a question that even the most SVP steeped seeker can delve into to access a modicum of clarity... but it's also a question that spans the entire gamut of experience and beyond. All of those notions ARE inherent in looking at 'what do I actually know for certain/what can be known for certain.' If we apply the question "what do I really know for certain" to that, there is indeed all sorts of assumption/surmising going on. His wife's telling him does not equal his 'actual knowing,' (under the definition of 'knowing' that is required by a serious seeker who if he's to attain a modicum of clarity as to WIBIGO.) And a videotape of a sleeping body = actual knowing that a sleeping body that looks like me is appearing on a screen, but as per the more evolved definition of 'knowing' it still doesn't fit the criteria of 'what is actually known.' But, if one is interested in 'what do I actually know for certain,' it's important to see that for what it is, and in seeing that, we also see that's it's not actually the 'less thought-filled' explanation at all...that in fact, there's a whole lot of minding in the ways we take consensus trance ideas inherent to the story, as WIBIGO. On a nonduality forum that supposedly addresses what's "actually" going on, it's a mistake to equate knowledge of appearances with "existence", regardless of what appearance we're talking about. Bodies and the boundaries between them, are all appearance only. When distinct bodies are appearing, they ARE appearing, complete with appearing boundaries, otherwise we wouldn't say they appear 'distinctly.' The Truth doesn't actually change from context to context. For me, there is only one meaning of the term "exist" if I am conversing on a nonduality forum. I'm trying to understand what you are getting at when you say: "In existential truth, the body has no separate existence apart from what the mind contrives as the boundary between the body and what it is not." Does that mean that appearing distinct bodies in some way = "separate existence"? Distinction DOES appear...distinct bodies DO appear....but distinction does not equal 'separation,' which is a reference to what is ' actually so.' Surely on a nonduality forum, certain terms such as separation/existence/knowing/ can be agreed upon to reference that which is "ultimatey/actually so?"
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 7, 2021 20:44:41 GMT
― Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing
One of those 'icebergs' involves seeing all the ideations that are mistaken for actual knowing that phenomenal things are appearing. Time passage, causation, and yes, a body that continues to appear in bed, while deep sleep is happening, all fall into that category.
There is no past/future beyond the ideas of them. Past/future are never directly experienced....there is no phenomenal, imminently appearing past/future. All phenomenal appearances arise imminently, IF they appear. That said, 'ideas about phenomenal appearance,' also arises imminently. It's important to see the different between an imminently arising idea about something vs. an actual appearance of that thing. There is no true knowing about bodies in beds during deep sleep, unless there is somehow direct experience of such. There are some who DO say they continue to experience a body and other stuff, even during deep sleep. I'm not one of them.
True knowing = that which is directly experienced....that which is imminently appearing. Thus, we can say 'I know the idea of a sleeping body' is appearing now, but there is not true knowing of a sleeping body, unless there is direct experience of a sleeping body.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 10, 2021 5:09:59 GMT
Yes!! Nailed it. (The gif is worth a 2nd share! )
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Apr 10, 2021 11:06:57 GMT
Yes!! Nailed it. (The gif is worth a 2nd share! ) Am wondering now, am not sure why, but am I the only chic over there now? Perhaps women communicate differently...
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 11, 2021 7:00:17 GMT
Yes!! Nailed it. (The gif is worth a 2nd share! ) Am wondering now, am not sure why, but am I the only chic over there now? Perhaps women communicate differently... Well, there's Reefs... I don't know if it's a woman thing or not but you 'reek of' (lol) maturity and absence of ego....have a profound way of putting things, yet simply, that just kind of cuts the core....the quote below exemplifies that. "I’d love to see a seeking to understand one another always pointing back to The Truth." Hell, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 29, 2021 18:42:54 GMT
Again, Sifty twists himself into knots trying to marry his conceptual understanding of nonduality with Truth.
If all he were selling were a process/path to a greater sense of relative peace, a process to being a more conscious and aware person, I'd have no issue. The very fact he thinks there's a path/process indicates conceptual enlightenment only. Again, nothing wrong with that....nothing wrong with being a person who is relatively more consciously aware, attempting to teach others to become more aware as to what's going on in mind, but when I see someone selling that as "SR/awakening" there's an impetus to point that out.
This is simply not so. Appearances are appearing. The seeing/knowing of appearance appearing can include the presence of a person/someone 'that' sees/knows that appearances are appearing, or in the case of SR, no such person thing that knows.
Sifty is mistakingly lumping awareness of an appearing world with being lost in labyrinth of ego. The two are not intrinsically tied together as he suggests.
The world does not need to disappear for freedom to be. You can transcend the world without having it disappear.
|
|