|
Post by Figgles on Mar 4, 2023 22:33:49 GMT
Perfectly put... Or shall I channel ZD and say: "Correct!"
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 4, 2023 22:35:20 GMT
Nice.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 9, 2023 18:03:15 GMT
Indeed. Not different actually from what Reefs & ZD assert when they say that because they've realized Consciousness is fundamental, and there is but One thingless thing, they're also realized that every appearing thing is conscious, perceiving, having it's own unique experience...each identifiable thing/form, is "a perceiver/experiencer." If that is so, then each of them also know for absolute certain that an AI machine, is conscious, perceiving, having it's own unique experience...why not start up a covo with them about this AI issue...could get interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 19, 2023 17:26:09 GMT
The problem is, the non-conceptual apprehension of Truth defies 'accurate' capture, thus, whatever metaphor or analogy that gets used, is ultimately, going to miss it's intended mark.
Those who take what is merely a pointer to Truth, such as the ocean/wave metaphor, and take it literally, have mistaken the pointing finger for the moon it is pointing to.
ALL conceptual terms used to reference the non-conceptual Truth will ultimately fail your criteria of accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 19, 2023 17:29:31 GMT
All fine and good so long as that pointer is not taken literally....mistaken as evidence for; All appearing things are "made of" consciousness, thus I know each appearing thing to therefore BE a something THAT IS giving rise to consciousness, which so often happens with seekers (many of whom deny they are still seeking).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 19, 2023 19:51:36 GMT
All limitation/boundedness is appearance only...not 'actual.' The Gopal person with his apparent limited viewpoint, is an appearance only....it has no inherent existence in it's own right. Once that is clearly seen/realized, that question of 'how/why' that you are asking above, gets seen as misconceived, as does any pat answer arrived at.
Ultimately, the 'me character' that leans how to drive a car....the driver...the driving....the learning...all of it....dream-stuff....an appearance within the story.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 19, 2023 21:14:57 GMT
Yes! That's because "your perspective" is mired within personal, limited, bounded mind....within the dream, merely trying to imagine what it's like to see from beyond/prior to.
Nonduality/the realization of Oneness involves a profound shift in locus of seeing of seeing....from the imagined eyes/position of an erroneous SVP to beyond/prior to ALL experiential content...all arising perceivables.
Within the dream, there's all sorts of stories we can engage about the how's and why's of human experience, ranging from reincarnation to an experience of a heavenly place following bodily death, but regardless of how compelling those stories may be, there can be no "Absolute" Truth to them....they remain of the realm of 'appearance only/experiential content.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2023 1:24:42 GMT
.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2023 1:28:54 GMT
From what I can see, your theory aligns pretty much point for point with Zeland's/Transurfing theory.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 25, 2023 13:33:13 GMT
Your post here Sharon, exemplifies the tenacious hold mind has, even in the midst of what I'm guessing is a pretty darned strong sense of being beyond/prior to mind...prior to all concepts.
Ultimately, there is no-one talking to any "What"...."Thing".....some-thing....where there is still a "what" we are therefore talking "content/perceivables/conceptualization.".....until there is a true and abiding absence of that "whatness" and mind's insistence upon IT, we're still very much talking a locus of seeing that is mired in dream, merely imagining it 'aint.
|
|