|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2020 5:04:15 GMT
I've certainly never said the CC experience, or ANY experience should be 'discounted' because it's transient....what I have said is that it's not "Truth." Just because an experience is not Truth does not mean we must 'discount' it.
You obviously still don't understand what it means to say that all experience is 'appearance only.' The seeing that all experience is transient, ephemeral, empty, an arising within/to that which abides does not equal it being discounted or devalued. That's the straw-man you keep propping up and then knocking down.
Experience continues to intrigue interest even after it's seen to be empty of Truth. No need to discount the CC experience, just see that it's not Truthy.
You've got it backwards; If we must invoke the term 'results from,' then it's much more apt to say that CC experiences 'result from' a realization/seeing through/absence than the other way around. CC experiences are not 'causal' to realization...far more apt to say that realization 'results in' mind attempting to capture the absence inherent in realization,and that's really what a CC experience IS. Mind trying to make sense of that which ultimately, it cannot grasp.
In your insistence that an experience, however special it may be, 'results in' a particular realization, you are positing a cause to seeing from beyond the dream, as being 'in the dream.' All experience, however awe inspiring it may be, is 'in the dream.' That which abides is not something that appears...is not 'something' experiential/phenomenal.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2020 5:11:26 GMT
Ah...I see Sifty's still hijacking common spiritual terms and playing word soup games with them.
These guys just won't let go of the idea that stuff in the dream can cause the seeing of the dream for a dream.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 16, 2020 15:48:32 GMT
I've certainly never said the CC experience, or ANY experience should be 'discounted' because it's transient....what I have said is that it's not "Truth." Just because an experience is not Truth does not mean we must 'discount' it. You obviously still don't understand what it means to say that all experience is 'appearance only.' The seeing that all experience is transient, ephemeral, empty, an arising within/to that which abides does not equal it being discounted or devalued. That's the straw-man you keep propping up and then knocking down. Experience continues to intrigue interest even after it's seen to be empty of Truth. No need to discount the CC experience, just see that it's not Truthy. You've got it backwards; If we must invoke the term 'results from,' then it's much more apt to say that CC experiences 'result from' a realization/seeing through/absence than the other way around. CC experiences are not 'causal' to realization...far more apt to say that realization 'results in' mind attempting to capture the absence inherent in realization,and that's really what a CC experience IS. Mind trying to make sense of that which ultimately, it cannot grasp. In your insistence that an experience, however special it may be, 'results in' a particular realization, you are positing a cause to seeing from beyond the dream, as being 'in the dream.' All experience, however awe inspiring it may be, is 'in the dream.' That which abides is not something that appears...is not 'something' experiential/phenomenal. Wow, after all this discussion, what's being said is still not being heard.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 16, 2020 16:12:58 GMT
Ah...I see Sifty's still hijacking common spiritual terms and playing word soup games with them. These guys just won't let go of the idea that stuff in the dream can cause the seeing of the dream for a dream. And realizations don't come and go. Here's a wacky thing about mind: Beliefs are 'known' to not be knowings, though this is typically an unconscious knowing. The reason is mind knows the source of it's own beliefs and the unanswered questions within them. The simple belief that a tree is a solid living object assumes all sorts of things about objects and solidity and life and existence and subjectivity that are also unconfirmed beliefs. This is why realization is much more powerful and incontrovertible than a belief, and why a belief must make use of creation in order to create and by itself can do nothing. Beliefs come and go because they are not known to be true. Realizations do not change because they ARE known to be true, and they are, because they are not of mind.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2020 17:27:43 GMT
I've certainly never said the CC experience, or ANY experience should be 'discounted' because it's transient....what I have said is that it's not "Truth." Just because an experience is not Truth does not mean we must 'discount' it. You obviously still don't understand what it means to say that all experience is 'appearance only.' The seeing that all experience is transient, ephemeral, empty, an arising within/to that which abides does not equal it being discounted or devalued. That's the straw-man you keep propping up and then knocking down. Experience continues to intrigue interest even after it's seen to be empty of Truth. No need to discount the CC experience, just see that it's not Truthy. You've got it backwards; If we must invoke the term 'results from,' then it's much more apt to say that CC experiences 'result from' a realization/seeing through/absence than the other way around. CC experiences are not 'causal' to realization...far more apt to say that realization 'results in' mind attempting to capture the absence inherent in realization,and that's really what a CC experience IS. Mind trying to make sense of that which ultimately, it cannot grasp. In your insistence that an experience, however special it may be, 'results in' a particular realization, you are positing a cause to seeing from beyond the dream, as being 'in the dream.' All experience, however awe inspiring it may be, is 'in the dream.' That which abides is not something that appears...is not 'something' experiential/phenomenal. Wow, after all this discussion, what's being said is still not being heard. Crazy hey?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2020 17:39:21 GMT
Ah...I see Sifty's still hijacking common spiritual terms and playing word soup games with them. These guys just won't let go of the idea that stuff in the dream can cause the seeing of the dream for a dream. And realizations don't come and go. Here's a wacky thing about mind: Beliefs are 'known' to not be knowings, though this is typically an unconscious knowing. The reason is mind knows the source of it's own beliefs and the unanswered questions within them. The simple belief that a tree is a solid living object assumes all sorts of things about objects and solidity and life and existence and subjectivity that are also unconfirmed beliefs. This is why realization is much more powerful and incontrovertible than a belief, and why a belief must make use of creation in order to create and by itself can do nothing. Beliefs come and go because they are not known to be true. Realizations do not change because they ARE known to be true, and they are, because they are not of mind. Ahh....sweet clarify. Really, really well put E. I gotta say, even beyond his message, am finding it increasingly difficult to get through Sifty's vids.... he has the whole performance shtick down... where he appears to be receiving insights from the ethers as he speaks...then he dons the excited expression of sudden illumination... flashes the cheesy, self-satisfied, euphoric grin, then just as quickly adopts the serious sagey inquisitive look....just doesn't come across as very sincere....his whole put on persona is kind of annoying....way too pompous for the fact that he's talking outta his butt.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2020 20:02:16 GMT
But you were arguing, quite vehemently, that you DID know....that it could be known...that you DID know that others were perceiving/experiencing, that they WERE conscious perceivers and your means of that knowing was supposedly your CC/Kensho experience/realization. So from which context was it that YOU were knowing that?
And that's really what's being asserted when it's said that 'it's not known...cannot be known...people who appear to be perceiving, is but an empty, ephemeral appearance only.'
All that is actually known to BE, all that can be known for certain, seen for certain, realized to be the case, is One, singular screen of consciousness (not belonging to a me, I, any-thing, any-one in particular) upon which all perceivables appear. "Others and the me character" are of course included among those perceivables. In seeing this, it's seen that the appearing body/character is not giving rise to consciousness, but rather, consciousness is giving rise to the appearing body/character...and to ALL appearing characters.
So, it seems you've changed your position now, because in the past, you were arguing that you DID know the appearing characters to be consciously experiencing. You said it took a realization to see that. But above you are saying that in realization, it's seen that there are no others, thus, the very question is misconceived. (That's what we've been saying too fwiw).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2020 20:13:26 GMT
You're missing the point ZD. Your question should not be 'if everyone were a figment, how do you think it would change your life,' rather, it should be: how does the seeing that you don't actually know, that it cannot be known, that all appearances (including the appearance of people/characters) are empty and not Truthy, change your life? And THAT is a realization, NOT an idea.
I find it extremely odd that you "sugget finding what remains after all ideas are left behind," considering that you have not yourself left all ideas behind. You are still clinging to the idea that there lies a substrate of aliveness beneath the surface appearance of all things...you've yet to see that that substrate of aliveness is phenomenal/experiential...it lies 'within' experience. That which remains when all ideas, all perceivables, are left behind, has no quality/property by which it is known. All quality/property is experiential/phenomenal...a perceivable. That which remains, is not a perceivable....it's that which abides and gives rise to all perceivables.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2020 20:19:41 GMT
Well, first we must get rid of the idea of 'being' belonging to someone...being owned by a me/I.
The knowing of Being/I exist, is something completely different to the relative knowing of Bill Gates Being. Bill gates is an appearance only...whereas Being/existence, is NOT. Bill gates arises within/to Being...the appearance that he is experiencing, that he is a conscious being, is also but an appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2020 20:25:22 GMT
It's out in those depths where all conceptual knowledge gets swept away...becomes absent. You keep talking bout 'not knowing' as though it is some kind of a presence. It's not.
How does an absence come to an end, particularly in those deeper waters? Not knowing...the absence of knowledge = transcendence....freedom.
|
|