|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 2:38:30 GMT
Yup. Figured a true banning was imminent....and While I've come to see that so long as Reefs is moderating, conversations will be under tight control, (thus, the enjoyment for me is limited there) I do still enjoy reading posts on ST, with the possibility of copying and pasting over here, where I can respond spontaneously and as I see fit. In the past when my IP was banned there, I couldn't even get in to read without using a proxy server, which hides the real IP... and that's somewhat of a pain in the arse.....thus, I figured I'd get outta dodge before the sh*t hit the fan....take my IP with me. From the beginning it's seemed that the goal is to ban us, and whatever we do will be found to be cause for banning. Yup....the moment we engage, we're screwed. No doubt about it, Reefs is....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 2:46:37 GMT
Enigma, FYI, you still owe me a reply to this one. Laughter and Figgles already confirmed. You're the only one who hasn't replied yet. I was actually assuming you left ST for good. That's why this thread is open again. Please read and confirm that you've understood the 'ETA' part before you continue to post here. R Of course! Great surrender!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 2:46:54 GMT
From the beginning it's seemed that the goal is to ban us, and whatever we do will be found to be cause for banning. Yup....the moment we engage, we're screwed. No doubt about it, Reefs is....
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 2:48:09 GMT
Yup....the moment we engage, we're screwed. No doubt about it, Reefs is....
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 17:48:14 GMT
In the case of Reefs and ZD, the problem is, that even they don't seem to know for certain if they are 'pointing' or 'asserting material knowledge.' Neither will come right out and say.
If 'it's all alive' is indeed, 'Just a Pointer,' then it never should have been used in the first place to augment their 'I do know' stance, relative to those of us who say it's unknown.
You'd likely have to go back a ways to get the crux of the argument, where it all began, but both Reefs and ZD pooped on the assertion of 'not knowing' relative to appearing people, all perceivables. They claimed they did know and that it can be known. Reefs began by insisting it was a "no-brainer," that it's all consciousness, then obviously, every appearing thing was conscious and thus, perceiving/experiencing, and then his argument shifted a bit, he said that obviously, even those of us who said we did not know, DID actually know, and this could be verified simply by observing the fact that we treat appearing others 'as if' they are actually experiencing/perceiving.
It wasn't til a bit later that the CC/Kensho realization claim arose. I think ZD introduced it, and then Reefs grabbed hold of that rope for dear life, milking it for all it was worth. At this point, they both waffle back on forth on whether their realization of "it's all alive," is in fact, just a pointer or an actual absolute knowing based upon direct apprehension of 'the infinite.' I've point blank asked each of them if 'it's all alive' is just a pointer and neither has given a straight answer.
If it truly is 'just a pointer,' it should never have been used in the first place to argue against 'not knowing.' Pointers always point away from concepts, from relative knowledge.
The emptiness of all relative knowledge does not become invalidate due to another realization that trumps/transcends it. There is no such realization. The idea of moving from a seeing through of all relative knowledge to a realization whereby relative knowledge now becomes absolute knowledge, is a complete and utter nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 18:02:58 GMT
The underlying issue really is regarding what constitutes a 'realization,' vs. what constitutes an 'in the dream/relative insight about the dream.' Direct seeing does not necessarily equal 'realization.' If what you are looking 'at' is a mere perception itself, it's not transcendent seeing you're talking about, but at best, 'an insight.'
The largest issue with you Reefs, is that you've completely changed your definition of 'realization.' At present, you are claiming 'a realization' can add knowledge, in the past, you were adamant it is always a loss, a seeing through, a subtraction. And what's really strange is the dates/timing of your shift regarding definition of realization does not line up with your said CC/Kensho experience. At the time where you had that 'one fell swoop' that supposedly 'included' CC/Kensho and thus, made CC/Kensho not such a big deal to you at all, you were still defining 'realization' as a loss vs. a gain.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 18:29:41 GMT
The only existential question worth asking is: "What can actually be known, for absolute certain, here, now, in this red, hot present moment." Once that is answered, the question of multiple experiencers, is clearly seen to be misconceived, as are all other existential questions that look to perceivables as the source of the answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 18:41:41 GMT
this war against knowledge is crazy!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 18:45:43 GMT
"Divorce" is too strong a word. If not FOR experience, there would be no importance to realization/seeing through. That said, realization/transcendent seeing, at it's basis, is always a subtraction/seeing through, vs. an adding, taking on of new knowledge about the world. The fact that we can and do talk about it, conceptualize it, put it into words, hinges upon the fact that mind can and does 're-frame' the absence left in the wake of realization, to talk about what it means in terms of experience. And so long as it's seen for what it is, (pointing) it's all good. Realization DOES have an impact upon experience as it removes identification with the phenomenal.
It's a mistake though to equate any 'experience' to realization, regardless of how awe inspiringly amazing and otherworldly that experience may be. Even the most mystical and beautiful of experiences are arisings within/to that which lies foundational to all experience.
Bottom line, if you come away from a 'realization' now believing that you possess new knowledge about the world, mind entered in to claim the absence of realization as a presence...something it can hang onto.
If we look at the freedom inherent in SR as 'freedom from mind,' then it becomes clear that clarity is always 'away from mind,' not 'heading towards or into' mind. Being free is all about clarity regarding 'what is not' so. It really is good enough to see through all the 'nots.' And what's left, really defies any and all capture with words (even though we still do try!).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 5, 2019 19:16:15 GMT
this war against knowledge is crazy! There is no 'war against knowledge' per se. But freedom means seeing that relative knowledge is not absolute knowledge. Relative knowings still get to stay, they are part and parcel of experience after all. It's the conflation of relative knowing with absolute knowing/seeing/realization, that has to go.
|
|