|
Post by Figgles on Sept 7, 2020 17:59:01 GMT
How is the way I've stated it "all about material mechanics"? Either there is perception or there isn't. Experience is either happening/arising or it's not. How many 'ways' are there for perception to happen...what would 'the mechanics' of perception even mean? I don't get it. Wow. Blind much? You just restated your interest in the mechanics, even as you try to disclaim it. "The same awareness looks out of every pair of eyes", is a pointer. It only sounds like it's a statement rooted in duality, to you. That's fine. That's the way it sounds to most other people, as well.
So long as it's a given that "awareness looking out of a pair of eyes" is but an appearance only, and it's not being used to assert that you actually know for absolute certain that there is awareness relative to the person's who appears to you, I have no problem with it. "IF" there is in fact actual perception/experience in play, relative to that appearing person, then of course, it would indeed be 'the same' awareness. It's incredibly important though that the person, body, eyes, AND apparent sentience that you experience as you engage with him, are all realized to be an appearance arising within/to that which does not appear/arise. The only way you ever know of "awareness looking out of a pair of eyes," is because that appears/arises as part and parcel of experience.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 7, 2020 18:02:34 GMT
Look a little closer at what went on; I didn't even specifically say that you were necessarily invoking an actual bridge there.....rather, I added to, clarified your point. Again, this is a discussion forum...elaborating upon, clarifying points that get made, could be said to be a normal and expected facet of what happens here. That's irrelevant, it's in the denial of the poetic metaphor that you slid into literalism. If you want left-brained, intellectual accuracy, I guess it would be more apt to say that "poetry is a bridge from the ineffable". (this should be good ... ) ...
When it comes to being liberated from the dream, there can be no compromises in terms of realizing the distinction between that which abides vs. that which appears....the delineation is stark and there's no cross-over....no wiggle room....no exceptions. Do you agree with that statement or disagree?
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 9, 2020 7:22:55 GMT
True enough that Joe C. Trance never even considers the question, but do you expect that every seeker necessarily will? Well, thanks ever so much for your concern, but I assure you it's unwarranted. I doubt you're being honest with yourself as to the source of your interest in this case. There's no point in my engaging until you drop the agenda. It's nothing but ego-coal. I find it amazing that you continue to deny the sacredness of the idea of knowing that appearing people are experiencing/perceiving, and the role that plays in this continued argument and instead are trying to paint me as the one who is harping upon an idea for purely egoic reasons. Do you really not see the importance of "no compromises" when it comes to delineating between that which abides vs. that which appears? I've no doubt about it after having this convo for so many years now....In terms of seeing all appearance as empty, the appearance of sentience on the part of appearing people is the number one most sacred of experiences/appearances... it's the one that's going to raise the greatest ire of the person who 'thinks' he's fully SR, when it's asserted to be empty. Just look at all the games that have been played during this convo by folks not willing to relinquish that one appearance into the 'empty' pile. Look at yourself, insisting on one hand that "not knowing" came to an end for you, but being totally and completely unwilling to offer any explanation as to how that happens without "knowing" rushing back in. The very reason this argument has gone on so long, is because of folks who single out this one appearance that is being asserted as empty, "not known," to argue that it IS/can be known. What do you think is behind the singling out of this appearance above all others, to declare it the one exception that is not empty? the only one interested in an argument here is you, and there's no reason for me to deny an emotion that you've become fixated on in your mind that has nothing to do with me.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 9, 2020 7:35:25 GMT
Wow. Blind much? You just restated your interest in the mechanics, even as you try to disclaim it. "The same awareness looks out of every pair of eyes", is a pointer. It only sounds like it's a statement rooted in duality, to you. That's fine. That's the way it sounds to most other people, as well.
So long as it's a given that "awareness looking out of a pair of eyes" is but an appearance only, and it's not being used to assert that you actually know for absolute certain that there is awareness relative to the person's who appears to you, I have no problem with it. "IF" there is in fact actual perception/experience in play, relative to that appearing person, then of course, it would indeed be 'the same' awareness. It's incredibly important though that the person, body, eyes, AND apparent sentience that you experience as you engage with him, are all realized to be an appearance arising within/to that which does not appear/arise. The only way you ever know of "awareness looking out of a pair of eyes," is because that appears/arises as part and parcel of experience. "Perception", "actuality" and the "parts and parcels of experience" are, in the way you've alluded to them, all the mechanics of the situation, and the mechanics of the situation are completely devoid of any existential meaning. Yes, that void is only the tip of an iceberg. Simply what's from the neck, upward. Emptiness is depthless, infinity is beyond any form of expression .. but not, apprehension.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 9, 2020 7:47:03 GMT
That's irrelevant, it's in the denial of the poetic metaphor that you slid into literalism. If you want left-brained, intellectual accuracy, I guess it would be more apt to say that "poetry is a bridge from the ineffable". (this should be good ... ) ...
When it comes to being liberated from the dream, there can be no compromises in terms of realizing the distinction between that which abides vs. that which appears....the delineation is stark and there's no cross-over....no wiggle room....no exceptions. Do you agree with that statement or disagree? "That which abides" can be either a pointer, or a sandcastle construct that the mind is resting on. There is nothing sacred. There is an important point of discernment where it all goes up in flames. None of it has any value. Not the awareness that looks through anyone's eyes, not your not-knowing, nor my end of my not knowing. Kill the fucking Buddha - he was a know-it-all-chatterbox - Christ was an obnoxious rioter, scientists are all existential retards, poetry is never anything but weak and sentimental dross, the notion of existential truth is a puerile joke, and there's not a single word anyone you've ever heard or read - including Niz, Tolle, Jed, diaper guy, and the evil frog, to name a few - that isn't ultimately hollow, meaningless, bullshit. Your notions of emptiness, are a sad, self-deluded escapist fantasy, and every word I've ever written, is most assuredly, a lie.
But, you see, that's just the the very point where mountains are no longer mountains, and rivers are no longer rivers.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 9, 2020 15:14:23 GMT
I find it amazing that you continue to deny the sacredness of the idea of knowing that appearing people are experiencing/perceiving, and the role that plays in this continued argument and instead are trying to paint me as the one who is harping upon an idea for purely egoic reasons. Do you really not see the importance of "no compromises" when it comes to delineating between that which abides vs. that which appears? I've no doubt about it after having this convo for so many years now....In terms of seeing all appearance as empty, the appearance of sentience on the part of appearing people is the number one most sacred of experiences/appearances... it's the one that's going to raise the greatest ire of the person who 'thinks' he's fully SR, when it's asserted to be empty. Just look at all the games that have been played during this convo by folks not willing to relinquish that one appearance into the 'empty' pile. Look at yourself, insisting on one hand that "not knowing" came to an end for you, but being totally and completely unwilling to offer any explanation as to how that happens without "knowing" rushing back in. The very reason this argument has gone on so long, is because of folks who single out this one appearance that is being asserted as empty, "not known," to argue that it IS/can be known. What do you think is behind the singling out of this appearance above all others, to declare it the one exception that is not empty? the only one interested in an argument here is you, and there's no reason for me to deny an emotion that you've become fixated on in your mind that has nothing to do with me. You insist it's an argument I'm interested in, but it's far more apt to say I'm interested in a discussion. No doubt though, your assertion about "not knowing can come to an end," does mean we're on opposing ends of this issue, which like it or not, runs central to most other conversations that could be had on a nonduality forum. That's really what the "It can be known/I do know" folks are failing to see; Reserving that one/singular appearance as a special case, has far broader implications than might first meet the eye. Any appearance, any facet of experience that is being singled out from all others as something that's absolutely known, is a stellar place to apply self inquiry....the obstacles to clarity rarely present themselves that readily. What's really at the crux of the insistence of not knowing coming to an end, and the insistence that via a special mystical experience, a special kind of realization happens where knowledge that was not previously there, rushes in and there's an adding of knowledge rather than a subtraction (which is how realization actually works) is nothing more than a person who can't bear the idea of parting with knowledge that multiple sentient, looking/seeing persons he experiences, are empty appearance only.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 9, 2020 15:37:24 GMT
So long as it's a given that "awareness looking out of a pair of eyes" is but an appearance only, and it's not being used to assert that you actually know for absolute certain that there is awareness relative to the person's who appears to you, I have no problem with it. "IF" there is in fact actual perception/experience in play, relative to that appearing person, then of course, it would indeed be 'the same' awareness. It's incredibly important though that the person, body, eyes, AND apparent sentience that you experience as you engage with him, are all realized to be an appearance arising within/to that which does not appear/arise. The only way you ever know of "awareness looking out of a pair of eyes," is because that appears/arises as part and parcel of experience. "Perception", "actuality" and the "parts and parcels of experience" are, in the way you've alluded to them, all the mechanics of the situation, and the mechanics of the situation are completely devoid of any existential meaning. Yes, that void is only the tip of an iceberg. Simply what's from the neck, upward. Emptiness is depthless, infinity is beyond any form of expression .. but not, apprehension. "Devoid of any existential meaning"..... ....as opposed to what? Your reference to "the void" as a "tip of the iceberg" is a reification of emptiness/absence and contradicts what you go on to say about emptiness as depthless...beyond any form of expression. The "apprehension" of depthless emptiness, the realization of the infinite that lies beyond any form of expression, is obscured specifically by mind clinging to ideas precisely like the one that says "not knowing/absence can come to an end." The suggestion that "not knowing" can and did for you, "come to an end" violates and completely contradicts the depthless/infinite/ineffable absence that lies at the heart of the pointer of "not knowing." "Not knowing" is not "presence of a something known," as you seem to be suggesting. It really is "an absence." And there is no 'tip' vs. 'other larger part,' to an absence....no need to even refer to it as "depthless or beyond form of expression or infinite," unless there's a need to point a seeker beyond his conceptualization of "emptiness/absence."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 9, 2020 16:16:16 GMT
When it comes to being liberated from the dream, there can be no compromises in terms of realizing the distinction between that which abides vs. that which appears....the delineation is stark and there's no cross-over....no wiggle room....no exceptions. Do you agree with that statement or disagree? "That which abides" can be either a pointer, or a sandcastle construct that the mind is resting on. There is nothing sacred. There is an important point of discernment where it all goes up in flames. None of it has any value. Not the awareness that looks through anyone's eyes, not your not-knowing, nor my end of my not knowing. Kill the fucking Buddha - he was a know-it-all-chatterbox - Christ was an obnoxious rioter, scientists are all existential retards, poetry is never anything but weak and sentimental dross, the notion of existential truth is a puerile joke, and there's not a single word anyone you've ever heard or read - including Niz, Tolle, Jed, diaper guy, and the evil frog, to name a few - that isn't ultimately hollow, meaningless, bullshit. Your notions of emptiness, are a sad, self-deluded escapist fantasy, and every word I've ever written, is most assuredly, a lie.
But, you see, that's just the the very point where mountains are no longer mountains, and rivers are no longer rivers. My question to you was: "When it comes to being liberated from the dream, there can be no compromises in terms of realizing the distinction between that which abides vs. that which appears....the delineation is stark and there's no cross-over....no wiggle room....no exceptions. Do you agree or disagree with that?" Your response is revealing. Obviously when I speak about the importance of seeing all appearance, all perceivables as an empty arising within/that which abides, I am NOT referencing 'that which abides' to be some kind of construct the mind can rest on. Anything that mind can rest upon, is a perceivable/appearance. Remember, I'm the one asserting 'not knowing/absence,' relative to your 'not knowing coming to an end.' If anyone is regarding that which abides all appearance as a construct of mind, considering your position, it would have to be you. Yes, we can say there is a sort of 'burning it all down' when it comes to seeing the inherent emptiness of ALL that appears, however, that 'burning down' does not result in the mental/emotional 'eschewing' that you seem to be applying; "meaningless bullshit...sentimental dross...a purile joke, sad, escapist fantasy..." It really IS enough to simply realize it as all empty. Empty does not mean you cannot still be in awe of it all....seeing it all as empty dream-scape does not mean the end of personal values, sentiment...we don't have to turn from regarding an appearance to be absolutely sacred to then seeing it as hollow bullshit. The regard for the dream and all it's dream-stuff as hollow, sad, bullshit is as much a facet of the dream, as was the regarding of a particular idea as being sacred. Values are themselves appearance only. THAT'S what's important to see and in seeing that, we don't have to turn around and eschew, denigrate or discard values, sentiment, awe for the dream. Freedom from the dream does not requite you to relinquish/give up/discard all values and personal feelings ABOUT the dream....it only requires you see those as appearance only! Freedom from the dream/not knowing does not mean a 'scorched earth' experience. You seem to be implying it's either one extreme or another; Either, there's a degree of compromise, or, there's an experience devoid of human sentiment. That's just not so. You are expressing a common misconception about what "not knowing/seeing through/absence" actually references...and considering that misconception, it now makes sense, I suspect you feel that "not knowing" must come to an end in order for you to feel love for persons who appear to you. Again, not so. If anything, the absence of mistaking the appearing person to be fundamentally existent in his own right, means that love flows unimpeded.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 10, 2020 7:58:56 GMT
the only one interested in an argument here is you, and there's no reason for me to deny an emotion that you've become fixated on in your mind that has nothing to do with me. You insist it's an argument I'm interested in, but it's far more apt to say I'm interested in a discussion. Fascinating that you'd characterize me as the one doing the insisting, when it's you (not me) who characterized this as an argument to begin with, you're the one who keeps initiating dialog with me on the topic rather than the other way around, and it's only you that seems to have an interest in convincing anyone of anything. No doubt though, your assertion about "not knowing can come to an end," does mean we're on opposing ends of this issue, which like it or not, runs central to most other conversations that could be had on a nonduality forum. That's really what the "It can be known/I do know" folks are failing to see; Reserving that one/singular appearance as a special case, has far broader implications than might first meet the eye. Any appearance, any facet of experience that is being singled out from all others as something that's absolutely known, is a stellar place to apply self inquiry....the obstacles to clarity rarely present themselves that readily. What's really at the crux of the insistence of not knowing coming to an end, and the insistence that via a special mystical experience, a special kind of realization happens where knowledge that was not previously there, rushes in and there's an adding of knowledge rather than a subtraction (which is how realization actually works) is nothing more than a person who can't bear the idea of parting with knowledge that multiple sentient, looking/seeing persons he experiences, are empty appearance only. When you concern yourself with "facets of experience" of "sentient looking/seeing persons" you're concerning yourself with the mechanics of the situation which is nothing I've commented on, and I've repeatedly disclaimed any absolute knowledge or even any new knowledge at all, much less knowledge that "rushes in". There's certainly an opportunity for the subtraction of falsity from a thought process involved here. But, it isn't mine.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 10, 2020 8:24:21 GMT
"Perception", "actuality" and the "parts and parcels of experience" are, in the way you've alluded to them, all the mechanics of the situation, and the mechanics of the situation are completely devoid of any existential meaning. Yes, that void is only the tip of an iceberg. Simply what's from the neck, upward. Emptiness is depthless, infinity is beyond any form of expression .. but not, apprehension. "Devoid of any existential meaning"..... ....as opposed to what? relative meaning about appearances. Your reference to "the void" as a "tip of the iceberg" is a reification of emptiness/absence and contradicts what you go on to say about emptiness as depthless...beyond any form of expression. nah, it's just a distinction between the intellectual point that appearances are existentially meaningless, which can have various levels of emotional depth, as well, from the realization and apprehension of the infinite, which is depthless. You're trying too hard, thinking too hard. There's no contradiction there: you're far too determined to prove your point to really understand what I'm writing. The "apprehension" of depthless emptiness, the realization of the infinite that lies beyond any form of expression, is obscured specifically by mind clinging to ideas precisely like the one that says "not knowing/absence can come to an end." The suggestion that "not knowing" can and did for you, "come to an end" violates and completely contradicts the depthless/infinite/ineffable absence that lies at the heart of the pointer of "not knowing." "Not knowing" is not "presence of a something known," as you seem to be suggesting. It really is "an absence." And there is no 'tip' vs. 'other larger part,' to an absence....no need to even refer to it as "depthless or beyond form of expression or infinite," unless there's a need to point a seeker beyond his conceptualization of "emptiness/absence." As you keep (mistakenly) repeating. Endlessly. Protest too much, much?
|
|