|
Post by Figgles on Sept 20, 2020 19:20:09 GMT
Okay Reefs, this makes it pretty clear. It's obvious what Gopal is referencing when he alludes to that which can't be known and you are clearly equating your 'knowing' with what you reference as 'true nature.'
Thus, you are saying that when you look at an appearing person, you do know that person is representative of a unique arising experience. And you've also said in the past that this also applies to appearing objects such as shoes, piles of poop and rocks.
How about other appearances that are more nebulous...stuff that appear in less defined/bounded ways? Thoughts, ideas, feelings, a rain drop, a cloud, a taste, a puddle, a pain, a typed letter on a screen, all of these are appearances, facets of experience, dream-stuff/dream-things that arise within/to consciousness. Are they all also known for absolute certain to each be uniquely 'experiencing/perceiving' or is it just objects/things that appear as defined form?
When we are talking about 'fundamental nature,' of all that appears in experience, there really is no difference at all between an appearing person and his apparent sentience vs. an arising feeling of heat as I experience the sun beating down on my face. Both are appearances arising within/to consciousness....both are ephemeral, empty and appearance only...neither are known to have independent, inherent, fundamental existence in their own right...they are both appearances, appearing upon the one, singular screen of consciousness....within the one, singular story/experience that can be known/seen to be arising.
You've conflated 'true nature' with something that you can conceptualize, whereas the actual realization of 'true nature,' is beyond such capture. What you really are is not an experiencer....perceiver....body/minds are perceived, not themselves the source of perception. And there is something more fundamental than experiencing/perceiving.....something that abides all experience....that abides all perception...something that's not a thing at all...that must be 'realized,' rather than 'experienced.'
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 21, 2020 21:16:47 GMT
If 'experience' is defined as, a time-based happening, that can be described in great detail, has a definite beginning and end and takes a text-wall to describe it, each time of the 439 times you've shared it on forum, then yes, indeedy-DO...Zd's CC=an experience. And 432 of those times he called it a 'CC experience'. (Hope proforum fact checkers don't count em.)
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 22, 2020 17:24:06 GMT
But you've claimed that it's via a 'realization/impersonal perspective' that you DO know for absolute certain that people (also, shoes, rocks, etc.) are perceiving/experiencing!
And you say you know that because via your CC/Kensho realization, you saw 'beyond/prior to' the appearing object/thing to see what it's 'comprised of' and that that something that 'comprises' all appearing things, is itself aware, conscious and perceiving/experiencing, and by virtue of that, you say you can & do know for certain that the apparent perception/experiencing apparently happening on the part of people who appear, is actual.
In a previous (recent) post though, you've also stated that from the personal perspective, it cannot be known for absolute certain whether the people you experience are actually perceiving/experiencing. So it's become quite a confusing mess as to exactly how it is you know that appearing people are perceiving/experiencing.
And it's really not "either/or" as you are asserting when you say it's either personal or impersonal perspective; we can still engage the "appearance of others," as experience arises while being fully aware that "otherness" is appearance only and not the actuality...that in actuality, there is no separation...it's all One.
Post SR, life is not lived in a way where a personal perspective is secular/isolated from impersonal perspective. The impersonal perspective transcends but also encompasses all relative/experiential content. The relative 'idea' of otherness is in no way at war with the realization that in actuality there is no other.
I think this misconception on your part explains why you constantly tout out the fact that those of us who say it's 'not known,' continue to engage with the appearing sentience of appearing others, regardless of our realization that it's 'appearance only,' as though it pokes holes in what we're saying.
You don't seem to grasp that engagement with appearances as they appear, continues on, even though it's all been seen through as 'appearance/dream-stuff' only. And the reason you have such trouble with that, is because for you, life is either lived from a "donned/taken on/put on" impersonal perspective OR from full immersion within the personal perspective. You have no reference for engagement with the personal, while simultaneously being fully aware/grounded in, the Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 22, 2020 17:41:45 GMT
Do you really believe there's a someone/an entity in play who can control where attention goes so as not to be lead down and thus 'end up' on an unwanted path?
You used to mostly talk Truth, now you mostly talk LOA....what's up with that?
When an impersonal perspective reigns supreme (when there is actual, abiding wakefulness) ideas about needing to control attention to as to avoid dark paths and 'end up' in a better place, really do go out the window.
Waking up reveals there never was an entity/someone in control in the first place....no 'decider' of where attention goes. Attention goes where interest leads. It's entirely impersonal despite the appearance/experience.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 25, 2020 16:08:41 GMT
If there's any sense of 'sacrifice' involved, it's not true surrender. In true surrender, there is no desire/intent TO 'drop/let go of.' The surrendered mind is free from desire/intent.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 25, 2020 19:40:57 GMT
So you are back to once again, clearly asserting that you DO know...? In a previous post not so long ago, you said that from the impersonal perspective, the question of whether or not appearing people are perceiving/experiencing or not, was misconceived. Can there be an answer/knowing regarding a misconceived question? You also acknowledged that from the personal perspective, it can't be known for certain. So is there some 'in between' perspective you are now invoking, by which you now somehow DO know the answer to what you previously denoted to be a misconceived question?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2020 14:56:15 GMT
Oh my. What sages are 'pointing to' has nothing at all to do with brain processing. If it pertained to such, they wouldn't have to point. We point when concepts fail to capture that which we're indicating towards. Wow, so for you then ZD, SR is indeed 'caused,' there is a path/process that if followed, will cause SR. There were conversations on ST at one point a ways back surmising whether or not there might one day be a medical process or medication that might cause SR, through changing the way the brain processes things...sounds as though you'd be on board with that idea....? There's one more, very big, entirely encompassing one that obviously still needs to be collapsed. And that's the idea that anything that appears is a source to anything else that appears. In short, until appearances are seen to be such, and with that, empty of Truth, wakefulness to the dream hasn't yet happened.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2020 15:05:12 GMT
A most excellent way of putting it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2020 15:35:42 GMT
Ugh...that is so misleading...confusing to a seeker.
Thingless things don't 'speak or hear' per se. Speaking and hearing are appearances only and not the 'actions' of a present something. When you ascribe the apparent actions of a person directly TO 'the only thingless thing,' you objectify that thingless thing as 'a something' that does stuff.
Again, seeing appearances for appearances will take care of this issue.
You are mixing contexts when you attribute specific facets of experience, specific appearances directly TO God, as you are doing here. This is what Gopal does also to arrive at the idea that he, as a character/body/mind, through his thoughts/beliefs, is 'creating' future manifestation.
Again, in realizing all sight, hearing of sound, feeling, thinking, walking, talking, all action, to be an empty appearance only, arising within/to that which abides, your objectification of Oneness/THIS, ends.
The character/body/mind who hears, the experience of hearing, the experience of feeling, arises within/to that which abides, not as an 'experience that is had' by that which abides, but, as an appearance within/to abiding awareness.
Awareness (as the ground to all that appears) is not an experiencer of walking, talking, thinking,......rather, the ground of all experience. SR means waking up to see there never was, never is actually is an experiencer!
Seeing that all separateness is imaginary means seeing there is no 'experiencer' and no 'doer', no object or entity of any kind. It means seeing all 'doing' itself as an appearance. There is no one, no thing doing anything. It's all just happening.
The very idea of making 'mistakes' is of a personal context as is the idea of a something/someone doing stuff.
Whereas, "no other," is transcendent and in seeing 'no other,' it's also seen that THIS is not a thing that does stuff...that 'doings' are appearance only....in terms of experience, all there is is appearance appearing. Doership is an appearance only....a facet of experience. When you ascribe doing to that which cannot be conceived of, you invoke something that CAN be conceived of.
"________________" is not a doer....not a feeler....not a walker...not a talker......but rather, all of those are appearance only and as such, are not actually 'doings,' at all.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 7, 2020 6:28:29 GMT
A most excellent way of putting it. Evil frog stuff is good even when it's recycled.
|
|