|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2020 20:33:02 GMT
So...what?? Now you are back to saying you DO know that others are actually experiencing? I thought you said in the last post I quoted that you agreed with Gopal that from the personal, it cannot be known and that from the transcendent, the question gets seen to be misconceived...? You don't have to 'ignore' anything let alone a 'large part of your own being,' in remaining aware that all appearances, including the appearance of sentience in the other, is but an ephemeral, empty appearance only. There is nothing 'to keep up.' The experiential remains captivating and compelling, just not to the degree of total engulfment, even after seeing that it's all an empty appearance.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 16, 2020 23:01:20 GMT
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. I hadn't actually watched the video till I read your review. You nailed it. It's quite a performance. I wonder if he ever did any method acting.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 17, 2020 5:03:27 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. An absence measuring contest. Aces.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 17, 2020 7:39:18 GMT
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. I hadn't actually watched the video till I read your review. You nailed it. It's quite a performance. I wonder if he ever did any method acting.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 17, 2020 7:40:34 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. An absence measuring contest. Aces. Nope. An absence really is....just an absence. There is no absence that is less or more of an absence than other. Where did you get that?
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 17, 2020 13:11:44 GMT
I hadn't actually watched the video till I read your review. You nailed it. It's quite a performance. I wonder if he ever did any method acting. He went to the William Shatner school of overacting? That explains it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 17, 2020 16:21:08 GMT
You contradict the bolded when you say: "What we perceive is the infinite."
The pointer of 'the infinite,' if it's beyond all 'thingness' is then of course, also beyond all 'perceived whatness.'
So long as there is perception, there is some-thing....some 'whatness' arising. All things...all whatness, is an appearance only. There is no-thing perceived that is not 'appearance only.'
Niz: "All perceivables all stains."
This has been your mistake all along; The knife-cut has not been deep and encompassing enough. You aren't seeing that ALL perceivables....are appearance only. There is nothing that appears within/to that which abides that itself abides. That which can be said to 'exist in it's own right,' is only that which abides.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 17, 2020 16:36:10 GMT
You contradict the bolded when you say: " What we perceive is the infinite." The pointer of 'the infinite,' if it's beyond all 'thingness' is then of course, also beyond all 'perceived whatness.' So long as there is perception, there is some-thing....some 'whatness' arising. All things...all whatness, is an appearance only. There is no-thing perceived that is not 'appearance only.' Niz: "All perceivables all stains." This has been your mistake all along; The knife-cut has not been deep and encompassing enough. You aren't seeing that ALL perceivables....are appearance only. There is nothing that appears within/to that which abides that itself abides. That which can be said to 'exist in it's own right,' is only that which abides. "Perceiving the Infinite" is a strange phrase. Could it mean something akin to realization?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 17, 2020 17:47:55 GMT
You contradict the bolded when you say: " What we perceive is the infinite." The pointer of 'the infinite,' if it's beyond all 'thingness' is then of course, also beyond all 'perceived whatness.' So long as there is perception, there is some-thing....some 'whatness' arising. All things...all whatness, is an appearance only. There is no-thing perceived that is not 'appearance only.' Niz: "All perceivables all stains." This has been your mistake all along; The knife-cut has not been deep and encompassing enough. You aren't seeing that ALL perceivables....are appearance only. There is nothing that appears within/to that which abides that itself abides. That which can be said to 'exist in it's own right,' is only that which abides. "Perceiving the Infinite" is a strange phrase. Could it mean something akin to realization? It is indeed a strange phrase...& think that's how Reefs is intending it...he's positing it to be a realization...but when he adds in a "what" that's perceived, he drags things back into the experiential. I think that term 'the infinite' is problematic in that way...I don't use it unless I'm engaging someone this insists upon it...unless I''m responding to their use....both Reefs and ZD use to denote 'a something,' even though they simultaneously insist that they are pointing to that which cannot be captured or defined.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 17, 2020 19:30:24 GMT
An absence measuring contest. Aces. Nope. An absence really is....just an absence. There is no absence that is less or more of an absence than other. Where did you get that? From my sense of humor, dear figgles.
|
|