|
Post by Figgles on Jul 25, 2020 3:06:38 GMT
How the hell does 'true nature' continue to be obscured if separation in it's totality has been seen through?
The only thing ever obscuring "Truth" is the SVP. When that's seen through, there is no Truth left hidden/obscured...how could there be? It's always only ever the SVP that is obscuring the Truth. Absent that, the Truth shines brightly.
The informing of mind...the addition of new knowledge..new ideas pertaining to the world/experience, does indeed occur in the wake of seeing through the SVP, but it's important not to conflate that with 'realization' itself, which is obviously what you are doing.
Again, you used to argue vehemently that 'realization' is always a negation/seeing through...a loss...a subtraction of knowledge, but now you are clearly positing a realization that is an addition of something known.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 28, 2020 16:18:49 GMT
Now, if you could just take that understanding and apply it to the conversation about realization and how it's a seeing through of what is not so, an absence, vs. an addition/acquisition of NEW information.
When you speak of 'true nature,' you are really talking about 'property/quality,' and the moment you are talking about property/quality, you've invoked a mental overlay.
The realization of "True nature" (like all other realizations) is a seeing of what is not so...a seeing through of all mental overlays...all 'content,' to the fundamental emptiness of all perceivables. So long as you are focused upon the 'quality/property' of perceivables, you are actually still focused upon the realm of perceivables, even though it may seem as though you are seeing from 'beyond.'
There is a 'seeing from beyond,' that is a mere experience, which means it's still very much 'in the dream,' and there is a seeing from beyond that is 'beyond the dream.' One involves content, the other does not.
Realization is all about seeing beyond the phenomenal...beyond perceivable content.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 31, 2020 3:34:56 GMT
We clearly are not referencing the same when we use the term. For me the term 'apprehending the infinite,' is a pointer to that which lies beyond experience vs. an experience, as it is for you.
And like ALL realizations, this 'apprehension' has seeing through/loss/absence as it's basis.
You have said that 'apprehending the infinite,' is a pointer, but the way you have been using it, it's not... It's a reference to an experience of something conceptual..something that has experiential quality/property of being unlimited, without bounds.
There is no such 'thing' in actuality. Only in mind does such a thing take shape in a way that it can then be experienced. "The infinite" is not an actual 'something' that can be experienced.
Your version is a reference to mind's conception of "complete and total absence of limitation" vs. the actual apprehension of 'boundlessness,' which is not at all a quality/property..which is not any-thing at all that mind can grasp via a concept.
In seeing through 'the matter of self,' the entire realm of appearance gets illuminated as empty. Absent the matter of self, there is no 'matter' beyond TO see through.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 31, 2020 19:20:20 GMT
Absent ALL content, there is no 'experience.'
You continue to speak about 'body knowing,' as though it is transcendent seeing. It's not. What you've failed to see is that the body, including all it's senses, is also an appearing 'thing.' All transcendent seeing is beyond that which appears...beyond bodies....beyond mind.
Once again, you are conflating separation with distinction. And, distinctions are not 'imagined.' It's only fundamental separation that is. Absent distinction, nothing at all appears...there is no experience to even talk about. Distinction does not = separation.
Experience IS 'composed of' distinct things...otherwise, no experience...but those appearing distinctions do not equal fundamental separation.
Of course there is a difference between imagining a tree vs. direct experience of a tree, but ultimately, BOTH are still dream content. That the tree is an expression of consciousness, should not be conflated with a conceptual knowing about 'what the tree is,' which you seem to be indicating there.
Beyond the appearance/experience of tree, there is no-thing else 'there.' You continually seem to be positing that there is some-thing beyond the appearance/image/experience of tree that exists phenomenally that can be perceived via the senses. Anything that you perceive 'about' the tree, it itself an appearance...an experience.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 31, 2020 21:30:51 GMT
If someone is in fact 'conceptualizing the infinite,' why does that matter?
It's an issue when there's an absence of awareness that that's what's happening...where there is a mistaking of mind's conceptualization for the Truth.
The reason that mistaking dream content for transcendence is an issue is because it leaves a person who merely thinks he's free vs. actual freedom....actual liberation....actual absence of separation...absence of the SVP. In short, it equals 'delusion,' which is what's at the root of all suffering.
"The infinite" is not a some-thing...not a place....not a state/concept/idea that is subject to being experienced. Where ZD for one is concerned, his 'apprehension' when he speaks about 'apprehending the infinite,' is the equivalent of 'experiencing.'
When I use the term 'apprehending' as in 'apprehending the infinite,' it's synonymous with 'realizing.'
Realization is never the accumulation of/addition of new knowledge, rather it's always the seeing through/loss/subtraction of previously held to knowledge. That said, experience continues to arise even after previous knowledge is seen through and that absence does impact experience.
An experiential absence of boundary/limitation, an experiential presence of unlimited possibility, the presence of an experiential sense of freedom....infinite potential are all descriptions of that impact, but it's important not to conflate those experiences with the realization/seeing through, or with liberation itself.
Liberation...freedom.....transcendence... while it does impact experience, is not an experience.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 1, 2020 13:37:03 GMT
We clearly are not referencing the same when we use the term. For me the term 'apprehending the infinite,' is a pointer to that which lies beyond experience vs. an experience, as it is for you. And like ALL realizations, this 'apprehension' has seeing through/loss/absence as it's basis. You have said that 'apprehending the infinite,' is a pointer, but the way you have been using it, it's not... It's a reference to an experience of something conceptual..something that has experiential quality/property of being unlimited, without bounds. There is no such 'thing' in actuality. Only in mind does such a thing take shape in a way that it can then be experienced. "The infinite" is not an actual 'something' that can be experienced. Your version is a reference to mind's conception of "complete and total absence of limitation" vs. the actual apprehension of 'boundlessness,' which is not at all a quality/property..which is not any-thing at all that mind can grasp via a concept. In seeing through 'the matter of self,' the entire realm of appearance gets illuminated as empty. Absent the matter of self, there is no 'matter' beyond TO see through. Zendancer: Faye often said that she couldn't understand how someone could apprehend the infinite but not see through the illusion of selfhood. Obviously, one had an infinity experience but not a 'unity' experience. There seems to be great difficulty in conveying the difference between experience and realization. I can only conclude that's because there is no reference for the latter.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 1, 2020 13:52:00 GMT
Absent ALL content, there is no 'experience.' You continue to speak about 'body knowing,' as though it is transcendent seeing. It's not. What you've failed to see is that the body, including all it's senses, is also an appearing 'thing.' All transcendent seeing is beyond that which appears...beyond bodies....beyond mind. Once again, you are conflating separation with distinction. And, distinctions are not 'imagined.' It's only fundamental separation that is. Absent distinction, nothing at all appears...there is no experience to even talk about. Distinction does not = separation. Experience IS 'composed of' distinct things...otherwise, no experience...but those appearing distinctions do not equal fundamental separation. Of course there is a difference between imagining a tree vs. direct experience of a tree, but ultimately, BOTH are still dream content. That the tree is an expression of consciousness, should not be conflated with a conceptual knowing about 'what the tree is,' which you seem to be indicating there. Beyond the appearance/experience of tree, there is no-thing else 'there.' You continually seem to be positing that there is some-thing beyond the appearance/image/experience of tree that exists phenomenally that can be perceived via the senses. Anything that you perceive 'about' the tree, it itself an appearance...an experience. Bingo x 4. I'd love to see this conversation happen on ST, but it's clear why it doesn't. With you/us out of the way, the nonsense can continue unabated.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 1, 2020 16:16:14 GMT
Absent ALL content, there is no 'experience.' You continue to speak about 'body knowing,' as though it is transcendent seeing. It's not. What you've failed to see is that the body, including all it's senses, is also an appearing 'thing.' All transcendent seeing is beyond that which appears...beyond bodies....beyond mind. Once again, you are conflating separation with distinction. And, distinctions are not 'imagined.' It's only fundamental separation that is. Absent distinction, nothing at all appears...there is no experience to even talk about. Distinction does not = separation. Experience IS 'composed of' distinct things...otherwise, no experience...but those appearing distinctions do not equal fundamental separation. Of course there is a difference between imagining a tree vs. direct experience of a tree, but ultimately, BOTH are still dream content. That the tree is an expression of consciousness, should not be conflated with a conceptual knowing about 'what the tree is,' which you seem to be indicating there. Beyond the appearance/experience of tree, there is no-thing else 'there.' You continually seem to be positing that there is some-thing beyond the appearance/image/experience of tree that exists phenomenally that can be perceived via the senses. Anything that you perceive 'about' the tree, it itself an appearance...an experience. Bingo x 4. I'd love to see this conversation happen on ST, but it's clear why it doesn't. With you/us out of the way, the nonsense can continue unabated. Yes and yes! ZD, if you happen to be reading along, please know that there is great interest here in having this conversation...not for the purpose of trying to 'get you' or show you up, but for the sake of Truth itself. If you are as interested in such as you've indicated, why wouldn't you want to have the conversation?...something to inquire into perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 3, 2020 18:33:38 GMT
What you are describing in the upper bolded (looking forward, feeling hopeful, eager, excited about future outcome) is something very different from the lower. (attachments to future and fantasies of worldly success and pleasure).
In the former, you're describing a very natural and unfettered experience of time, complete with idea of future, absent attachment. A feeling of hope that goes hand in hand with 'excitement,' does not have lack/limitation as it's basis. The presence of excitement indicates that intent (what you are hoping for....what you are looking forward to) is resonant with your current state of being.
Whereas an attachment to an idea about what is desired in the future, from a state of being that is resonant with lack, limitation, separation, is more akin to 'longing.' You are desiring something that you currently are not in resonance with.
Seeing that the future is but an idea...that it is only ever NOW, does not mean never again engaging the idea of 'what is to come.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 3, 2020 18:43:27 GMT
So when you are pouring concrete, time being of the essence, trucks pulling into position...you're whipping everyone into position to make sure all goes smoothly, there's no focus whatsoever upon the future..? Upon an end goal....no imagined completed project, no "hope" that all will go as planned?
Surely even with an intense focus upon present, there is space for intention towards future outcome?
|
|