muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 10, 2020 10:00:05 GMT
"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?" Ya'd think that after all these years of trying that you'd finally figure out that all of your attempts to box your straw-laffy into a double-bind "agree/disagree" corner are always, quite sadly, bound to miserable failure. 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. (** tsk tsk tsk **) always writing these competitions. Did I say or even imply yet that you were resting your mind on that construct? Such rest is a subconscious affair, and the dynamics of these dialogs make it quite clear to me that the entire process of those dialogs is driven by your massive spiritual ego, which you quite often deny. 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. heh heh, that was a stanza of poetry to shake you out of this giraffe. 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. And now you've spun up a false dichotomy and set it to ride in a saddle on top of that giraffe. Did my poem claim all dream stuff to be hollow, or just a particular kind of dream stuff? 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. Yes, once appearances, such as conditioning, beliefs, sentimental attachments, societal programming and the like are seen for what they are, they can still be engaged with as either relative benefits, problems or neither. But, before that realization they can and do make up the fabric of the existential delusion. The sense of awe is a beautiful thing, neither personal nor impersonal, material nor immaterial and hinted by the breathtaking scale on which appearances appear. Neither near, nor far, neither loud, nor soto, neither large, nor small, but, instead, an echo of the very essence of our being, which we are never not. Wonder at the profound majesty of it all doesn't have to be constricted by a wonder about anything, but rather, can describe an ongoing human experience of perception in the absence of the illusion of any boundary. (don't overthink the poetry, hun' ) 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! Right. Now, here, once again, notice your morph of what the poem said on it's face. 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. Nope, and I explicitly stated the poem was about how it seems when "mountains are no longer mountains". The view from that place is subjective. Maybe you can relate, maybe you can't, which doesn't necessarily indicate to me (in and of itself), for sure, one thing or another, about you. Although, if your perspective on talking to the dead never had a bump in the road, it's smoke that suggests a fire. I used to have a nice, tidy, safe, scientific world view, so I know how it can feel like a bit of a free-fall when the rug gets pulled away. If anything, the absence of mistaking the appearing person to be fundamentally existent in his own right, means that love flows unimpeded. you got a one-track mind that you've deluded yourself into imagining, is about the 'uncompromising Truth!', but really is a determination to conclude(see above) something about straw-laffy in order to prove something to yourself, about yourself. Yes, love flows unimpeded once "mountains are once again mountains, and rivers are once again rivers", but, on the other hand, I'd prefer to stay out of the embrace of a brown-bear.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 10, 2020 20:19:00 GMT
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. Okay. Point made; you're NOT "insisting." Does "asserting" sit any better? But you've repeatedly used the term "not knowing came to an end," absent much in the way of clarifying what you mean by that. It's a little disingenuous to become testy when I wrongly assume that that must mean that "knowing rushes in where there was previously an absence." You seem to be demonstrating impatience with me for misconstruing what you mean by "not knowing came to an end," which is kind of odd when you consider the fact that you continue to avoid clarification. It's a bit like that hot/cold game kids play. Again, I'd prefer to have a direct conversation about it instead. If that's what you classify as "mechanics," then obviously there is no way to talk about "appearance/perceivables/perception" without invoking "mechanics." Absent "facets of experience/the appearance of sentient people," there'd be no talk about the inherent emptiness of those appearances...no talk about not knowing vs. knowing, and no talk about not knowing coming to an end. The assertion of not knowing was always in reference to appearance. The only reason it's important to see the inherent emptiness of all that appears is because stuff appears and because those appearances can be and are deceptive!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 10, 2020 20:28:49 GMT
"Devoid of any existential meaning"..... ....as opposed to what? relative meaning about appearances. You said this: To me that sounded as though there is something that could be "full of" existential meaning. Is there...? If so, what? The very term "full/empty of existential meaning" seems odd to me. Isn't all "meaning" always in the eye of a beholder? "Existential/Absolute Truth" on the other hand.... Again, this term "existentially meaningless,"....I find problematic. Appearances are empty of absolute Truth, empty of inherent, independent existence. You're mixing contexts...that is unless there is such a thing as "existentially meaningFUL"? The word "meaning" as I see it, doesn't belong in a conversation about existential Truth...again, "meaning" is a personal assignation, not absolute Truth..."meaning" itself is an appearance only....which means..."empty" and devoid of Truth. The seeing of inherent emptiness of all that appears is only relevant to "meaning" in the sense that "meaning" is itself an empty appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 10, 2020 21:07:57 GMT
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?" Ya'd think that after all these years of trying that you'd finally figure out that all of your attempts to box your straw-laffy into a double-bind "agree/disagree" corner are always, quite sadly, bound to miserable failure. When it comes to that particular question, nothing other than a yes/no will do. That's the point. There IS no compromise....there is no grey area, no wiggle room. If not then, you DO seem to saying it now...? The more we converse the more I don't think it's a giraffe at all that you do in fact believe that there are full-out 'bridges/paths' within the experiential, to the Truth. let's have a look: You did much more there than poetically reference certain dream-stuffs to be 'hollow.' For one, when you say "none of it has any value," you've done gone and mixed contexts. The term "Devoid of Truth" does not equal devoid of value....rather, it means "devoid of inherent existence in it's own right." Value is itself dream-stuff, a personal assignation that is entirely in the eye of a beholder. Seeing the inherent emptiness of all that appears does not render poetry to be "weak and sentimental dross," again, that's a judgment...it's in the eye of a beholder....that requires personal judgement and has nothing to do with seeing the inherent emptiness of appearances other than, personal judgment is itself an appearance only...experiential content. In short, your poem seems to me to mistakingly conflate the realization of inherent emptiness with the presence of specific personal judgments about appearance. As an arising/appearing 'sense/feeling/response' Awe is indeed "material"....itself an appearance only....a perceivable...a facet of experience. That does not mean it is to be in any way though, denigrated. Says the dude who uses poetry to argue non-poetic points. Yes, as you indicate in the poem, you are talking about 'experiential content.' But again, you seem to be conflating that which appears with that which does not....it's difficult to tell for sure though when you refuse to directly address my questions and when you resort to poetry to rebut my non-poetic assertions. The perfect tactic really for when there is confusion and you're trying to pretend there isn't.
Again, I invite you to explain how it is that "not knowing" comes to an end without "knowing" rushing in.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 12, 2020 2:58:13 GMT
Oh great....another Kensho-er who is convinced his woo-woo/mystical experience equals a profound realization.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 12, 2020 9:58:50 GMT
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. Okay. Point made; you're NOT "insisting." Does "asserting" sit any better? It's irrelevant, as you're the one who asserted it, not me. But you've repeatedly used the term "not knowing came to an end," absent much in the way of clarifying what you mean by that. It's a little disingenuous to become testy when I wrongly assume that that must mean that "knowing rushes in where there was previously an absence." You seem to be demonstrating impatience with me for misconstruing what you mean by "not knowing came to an end," which is kind of odd when you consider the fact that you continue to avoid clarification. It's a bit like that hot/cold game kids play. Again, I'd prefer to have a direct conversation about it instead. If that's what you classify as "mechanics," then obviously there is no way to talk about "appearance/perceivables/perception" without invoking "mechanics." Absent "facets of experience/the appearance of sentient people," there'd be no talk about the inherent emptiness of those appearances...no talk about not knowing vs. knowing, and no talk about not knowing coming to an end. The assertion of not knowing was always in reference to appearance. The only reason it's important to see the inherent emptiness of all that appears is because stuff appears and because those appearances can be and are deceptive! The testiness is entirely a projection on your part. I've been replying to you despite the fact that the dialogs are entirely repetitive and circular, and if you don't see that as patience it's because you're trying not to. The "perception of sentient people" is a relative affair. It's about how appearances appear. It's an issue for scientists and philosopher's. The pointer of "the same awareness looks out of every pair of eyes", isn't a relative statement. You keep trying to equate your not-knowing with my statement about how I say that not-knowing came to an end for me, and it's all TMT, all just mind spin, driven by ego-need.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 12, 2020 10:07:31 GMT
relative meaning about appearances. You said this: To me that sounded as though there is something that could be "full of" existential meaning. Is there...? If so, what? The very term "full/empty of existential meaning" seems odd to me. Isn't all "meaning" always in the eye of a beholder? "Existential/Absolute Truth" on the other hand.... It's really quite amusing that you'd make up a term based on overthinking some words on a page and then opine about how odd it is. The nondual pointer's point to existential meaning. To say that there is no existential meaning in the way that appearances appear is simply to make a statement about absence. To speculate about some .. **whatever** that's "full of existential meaning" is TMT. Again, this term "existentially meaningless,"....I find problematic. Appearances are empty of absolute Truth, empty of inherent, independent existence. You're mixing contexts...that is unless there is such a thing as "existentially meaningFUL"? The word "meaning" as I see it, doesn't belong in a conversation about existential Truth...again, "meaning" is a personal assignation, not absolute Truth..."meaning" itself is an appearance only....which means..."empty" and devoid of Truth. The seeing of inherent emptiness of all that appears is only relevant to "meaning" in the sense that "meaning" is itself an empty appearance. Nah, I'm not mixing contexts. I'm just writing about emptiness in the way that I write about emptiness. Everything you've written here is the product of an overactive thought process applied to that writing.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Sept 12, 2020 10:30:07 GMT
Ya'd think that after all these years of trying that you'd finally figure out that all of your attempts to box your straw-laffy into a double-bind "agree/disagree" corner are always, quite sadly, bound to miserable failure. When it comes to that particular question, nothing other than a yes/no will do. That's the point. There IS no compromise....there is no grey area, no wiggle room. Only in your dogmatic mind-trap. It's just a dream-prison you've imagined up for your straw laffy. Sorry, the bars ain't real. If not then, you DO seem to saying it now...? The more we converse the more I don't think it's a giraffe at all that you do in fact believe that there are full-out 'bridges/paths' within the experiential, to the Truth. let's have a look: You did much more there than poetically reference certain dream-stuffs to be 'hollow.' For one, when you say "none of it has any value," you've done gone and mixed contexts. The term "Devoid of Truth" does not equal devoid of value....rather, it means "devoid of inherent existence in it's own right." Value is itself dream-stuff, a personal assignation that is entirely in the eye of a beholder. Seeing the inherent emptiness of all that appears does not render poetry to be "weak and sentimental dross," again, that's a judgment...it's in the eye of a beholder....that requires personal judgement and has nothing to do with seeing the inherent emptiness of appearances other than, personal judgment is itself an appearance only...experiential content. In short, your poem seems to me to mistakingly conflate the realization of inherent emptiness with the presence of specific personal judgments about appearance. you're analyzing poetry. You've read in a comment about how there can come a point where nothing seems sacred any longer with the idea that " all appearences are hollow". You've missed the point that the poem was expressing a burning down of existential falsity, not a rejection of appearances generally. It's not the physical house that burns, it's a metaphorical burning of books. There will always be some false support prior to the final realization where the mind rests, and this can be even the most profound and beautiful notion that any nondual culture has to offer. The poem was an editorial on how the mind can twist the words of someone like Niz or the evil frog into something that they're not, and use that twist to suspend the absence of falsity indefinitely. The fire-cleanse isn't necessarily a universal element of a path, and if you can't relate to it, then you can't relate to it. As an arising/appearing 'sense/feeling/response' Awe is indeed "material"....itself an appearance only....a perceivable...a facet of experience. That does not mean it is to be in any way though, denigrated. Says the dude who uses poetry to argue non-poetic points. Yes, as you indicate in the poem, you are talking about 'experiential content.' But again, you seem to be conflating that which appears with that which does not....it's difficult to tell for sure though when you refuse to directly address my questions and when you resort to poetry to rebut my non-poetic assertions. The perfect tactic really for when there is confusion and you're trying to pretend there isn't.
Again, I invite you to explain how it is that "not knowing" comes to an end without "knowing" rushing in. Oh, no, you see, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. As I've said before, many times, you're more than welcome to your opinions. The " argument", in question, is entirely one-sided. And as I've also already said, the fire-cleanse poem was to dispel you of your giraffe that I hold anything "sacred" -- if you look close at what you're writing now you can see that's another projection -- .. To write more about not-knowing would require more poetry, but you're reading anything I write through the filter of an agenda, so it would be wasted on ya'. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 12, 2020 15:45:20 GMT
The testiness is entirely a projection on your part. I've been replying to you despite the fact that the dialogs are entirely repetitive and circular, and if you don't see that as patience it's because you're trying not to. You are replying, but clearly avoiding direct address in many cases, and all the while, making it personal, whereas I'm just addressing the content of your message. I'm not imagining all your references to my ego and my supposed egoic reasons for making the point I'm making. No, It's not about "how" appearances appear, it's THAT appearances appear....it's THAT people, perception on their part, sentience on their part, all appearance only...& that the only reason we're talking about "looking/seeing out of eyes" is because of the appearance of such. Yeah, see, there we go again. Try leaving out your personal feelings for once and just address the message itself. The basis of that statement is the fact that "looking from eyes" appears to be the case. Absent the experience of perceiving eyes that are apparently looking/seeing, you wouldn't be using that term in your pointer. Absent the relative experience of "multiple pairs of eyes....of sentience....eyes that look/see" the pointer would be completely irrelevant....unnecessary. What I see folks doing is, they collapse the specific appearance of a thing/person to say there is actually no "other," but then go back and reify the appearing person by saying they know with absolute certainty, there is unique perception/experience happening relative to that appearance. Absent the appearance, absent appearing people, absent apparent sentience on their part, there'd be no talk at all about multiple/unique experience...about "all eyes" that look/see. But yes, IF there is in fact, looking/seeing relative to those appearances, then the pointer "It's the same awareness that looks out of all of them," is a good one. Fundamental to that "IF" is an absence....and it's important to say, in seeing that there is an "if" there, (that it remains unknown) one doesn't then go around constantly wondering if appearing people 'actually are' sentient, rather, that appearance along with all other appearance, is realized and fully accepted to be inherently empty of Truth...part and parcel of the dream....dream-stuff only...and as has been discussed previously, 'dream-stuff/empty of Truth,' does not equal 'nor worthy of engagement/interest.' & If your "not knowing came to an end," has no relevance at all to my "not knowing," as you seem to be indicating there, then why on earth did you enter into the conversation of "not knowing," to offer that up? This is the problem with Reefs/ZD as well....they entered into the convo to rebutt the assertion of not knowing, and are now trying to pin 'context error' on those of us who asserted that not knowing and queried into their assertion that it is/can be known.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 12, 2020 16:40:39 GMT
It's really quite amusing that you'd make up a term based on overthinking some words on a page and then opine about how odd it is. The nondual pointer's point to existential meaning. To say that there is no existential meaning in the way that appearances appear is simply to make a statement about absence. To speculate about some .. **whatever** that's "full of existential meaning" is TMT. Okay. Going with that then, it's really NOT accurate to say that there is no existential meaning "in the way" that appearances appear; Appearances appear, empty and devoid of Truth, arising ephemerally, dependently upon, within/to that which has fundamental existence, not separate from that which is fundamentally existent, but yet, so long as it's appearing, distinctly distinct from that which abides. In a way that makes it, not so empty, after all. If "all eyes that look/see being the same awareness", actually is a pointer that includes rather than negates inherent emptiness, it would be far more apt to point 'beyond' the appearance aspect...something more akin to; The apparent awareness that arises relative to appearing body/minds, is empty and unknowable beyond it's appearance, but it is also not separate from the fundamental, abiding awareness that gives rise to that appearance. There is but one awareness and it singularly abides all appearance of multiplicity. It's true that Niz offered quotes that say similar to what your "pointer" is pointing to, but in tandem with that, there's also a wealth of quotes that clearly indicate that Niz did not conflate the appearance of awareness with fundamental awareness....which means, even when he spoke of "One consciousness looking out of all eyes," inherent to that pointer was always the realization that "consciousness looking out of eyes," never becomes something more than just an appearance, an empty arising within to fundamental existence itself. When mountains once again become mountains, it doesn't mean we go back to taking the mountain as fundamentally existent in it's own right, rather, we fully engage the mountain once again as a mountain, but this time, with absolute clarity that it's an ephemeral arising within/to that which abides/exists in it's own right. Yes, it's all consciousness, all One, but that does not mean the 'distinction' between appearance vs. that which abides, goes away. So long as appearances are appearing, distinction IS. Distinction is not separation.
|
|