|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2021 17:54:30 GMT
Yes.
...seeing the entirety of physical reality as 'empty appearance only,' also necessarily means seeing people as included in that....but what some are failing to see is that the appearing me character is also included. I find it interesting that no one on ST balked at all regarding that suggestion of 'all appearances are empty....an objective physical reality is a misconception'.... up and until "people and their apparent experiencing" was specifically spoken about.
If the seeing through of ALL appearance is complete, that means a complete absence of identification with any-thing at all...which means, all that's remaining as "existent" is the ground from which all dependently arising appearances, arise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2021 18:32:28 GMT
Where I am concerned, it's very clear, you've mistaken my inclusion of appearing people in my assertions regarding "not knowing"...(which hinges upon seeing the entire world as 'empty appearance only,') for philosphical Solipsism.
The unknowing inherent in SR really is a seeing through of previously held knowledge and not the taking on of new knowledge...it really is an absence...an absence of absoluteness relative to ALL appearance. You keep coming back to asserting on my part, a rigid 'presence of absolute knowing, within the story, that it cannot be known.' The absolute knowing/seeing is beyond the story...it's a realization.
What you are doing there is conflating the awareness of an absence of absolute knowing with the presence of conceptual knowledge. There is a resultant presence of conceptual knowledge (informing of mind) following SR, that's how it is we can talk about Truth. (Try at least).
The relative (mind informed) material knowledge that allows me to talk about 'not knowing' (which is an absence) has realization at it's basis. SR illuminates 'relative knowledge...relative truth' as empty of absoluteness....which means, empty of it's own inherent existence. You said it well yourself in the past:
When an SVP is present, there is also the erroneous absolute/certainty that separation is the case....which means there is misconceived, absolute certainty that appearing things have inherent, independent existence in their own right. It takes the seeing through of separation to see that that is not so.
But, that does not mean that relative knowledge itself, as a facet of the dream, doesn't continue on to play a part in experience. It does, it's just that now it's clearly seen to be empty of Truth....not Absolute....not having existence beyond the moment of it's imminent arising.
You seemed to be more than okay in previous years with the idea that the entirety of what appears is empty and devoid of it's own inherent existence (again, see your previous quote above), but when it came to the suggestion that "experiencing People" also fall under "empty appearance," you found that specific inclusion intolerable.
All that is is mind rearing up in defence of a particular idea which it holds far too dear to part with. It's a tough one for a lot of folks. Their fine with their conceptual understanding that the world is an empty appearance only, up and until it quietly gets mentioned that appearing people and their apparent sentience/experiencing is included in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2021 18:50:57 GMT
Clearly, there's a problem with the use of the term "real" in these convos. I stopped using the term altogether for that reason.
"Empty and devoid of Existence in it's own right" is what I mean when I say appearances are empty of Truth....that SR is an 'unknowing' a seeing through of previously held to, erroneous certainties about worldly things.
You keep bringing up this walk/talk issue. Which really drives home the point that you are trying to apply a conceptual seeing where a realization/seeing through is required. You think if the apparent experiencing of an appearing person is seen to be empty of Truth, (there is an absence of absolute knowing relative to it) then that should result in the appearing me character no longer engaging at all with the appearing 'you' character. It's a stance that just reeks of conceptualization of that which defies such.
The seeing through of the entire phenomenal world as empty appearance only, does have some monumental ramifications in terms of how the world is experienced thereafter, but those changes are not always evident in the appearing characters, appearing behaviors.
The idea that seeing that the cup I hold in my hand is empty of inherent existence in it's own right (as is the action of holding...the character, the hand, etc, etc.) does not mean that the appearance of a character with cup in hand, ceases. By token of your position, the me character should what...? toss the cup...? smash it? Refuse to drink from it? Your very assertion invokes an SVP (where there is none).
The story continues a rolling on, even after seeing it for a story....the story content does change to some degree, because mind/experience is informed following SR, but the precise manifestation of those changes, cannot be predicted or imagined by one merely trying to imagine what's it like to be absent identification with appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2021 19:00:19 GMT
Can't speak specifically for/of Gopal here, but just because one talks to others as though they are perceiving does not mean that that appearance of experience/perceiving on the part of the appearing person, is being mistaken for something other than an empty appearance. If the entire world is an empty appearance, arising dependent upon that which abides, then obviously, included in that are people and their apparent experiencing.
Ultimately, it's all just an empty appearance, a lark, a dream, arising to no-one in particular.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 22, 2021 20:28:41 GMT
Both would involve a failure to see the inherent emptiness of all appearances, including appearing people....apparent sentience. Trying to find out the 'actuality' of an appearance indicates a misconception. The question/idea of a "virtual reality," is also, for the same reason, a misconceived idea.
So long as one is still asking these questions, the inherent emptiness of the phenomenal has not been seen through.
The 3rd choice that you failed to mention is: People/characters that appear in the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 22, 2021 21:03:15 GMT
Precisely. Seeing what is Absolutely (T)rue, requires a realization...a seeing through. Seeing what is True = seeing what is false...it's a seeing through...a negation...a loss of knowledge...an unknowing.
& indeed, That seeing of what is not so, does NOT have intellect/logic inherent to it. It's a direct, non-conceptual seeing of what is not so that leaves Truth revealed/illuminated.
This perfectly describes the realization of the inherent emptiness of all appearance...that all perceivables appear within/to that which abides, dependent upon that foundation as they appear. They have no independent existence in their own right...no independent foundation beyond the awareness they arise of, as they imminently appear.
Once the entirety of appearance/perceivables has been realized to be empty and devoid of Truth, there's no longer any attempt to milk the Truth from an appearance. All that's know is that which abides... an appearance is appearing (if/when an appearances is appearing)....empty and devoid of it's own inherent existence, dependent upon that which abides...no separation between the appearing distinction and the ground which it is dependent upon.
The idea that there is some special mystical/woo-woo, CC/Kensho experience, whereby it is realized that it's (T)rue that appearing things/objects DO give rise to individualized/unique experiencing/perception = a supposed realization that separation is actually the case.
What Oneness is in reference to is the dependent relationship between the foundation that abides and that which transiently and ephemerally arises.....that despite the distinction inherent in appearances appearing, there is no separation between appearance and foundation.
To see the inherent emptiness of appearances and to see that that includes appearing people and their apparent sentience, does not result in the presence of a continued question regarding that apparent sentience, because the appearance itself is more than enough...there is no information lacking/missing, because the one whom you keep insisting to be not walking his talk, is also an empty appearance. The entire 'play' is absent inherent existence in it's own right....an ephemeral arising within/to that which abides.
Why would you need to know something more about stuff appearing in the play once the inherent emptiness of all of it has been realized?
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Apr 23, 2021 21:46:02 GMT
Both would involve a failure to see the inherent emptiness of all appearances, including appearing people....apparent sentience. Trying to find out the 'actuality' of an appearance indicates a misconception. The question/idea of a "virtual reality," is also, for the same reason, a misconceived idea. So long as one is still asking these questions, the inherent emptiness of the phenomenal has not been seen through. The 3rd choice that you failed to mention is: People/characters that appear in the story. Does Enigma says it’s not possible to get angry? Best tell that to my dog Pablo. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 23, 2021 21:49:12 GMT
Both would involve a failure to see the inherent emptiness of all appearances, including appearing people....apparent sentience. Trying to find out the 'actuality' of an appearance indicates a misconception. The question/idea of a "virtual reality," is also, for the same reason, a misconceived idea. So long as one is still asking these questions, the inherent emptiness of the phenomenal has not been seen through. The 3rd choice that you failed to mention is: People/characters that appear in the story. Does Enigma says it’s not possible to get angry? Best tell that to my dog Pablo. He specifies "blame" to the "anger" which he says no longer arises. |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Apr 23, 2021 22:10:28 GMT
Does Enigma says it’s not possible to get angry? Best tell that to my dog Pablo. He specifies "blame" to the "anger" which he says no longer arises. The psychological murky stuff. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 25, 2021 22:56:23 GMT
He specifies "blame" to the "anger" which he says no longer arises. The psychological murky stuff. Yes. As E' pointed out several times these discussions about feeling states are ultimately so subjective that comparison can become impossible. FWIW I took what E' to mean as a radical forgiveness of "love thy enemy". Sound familiar? See now, he'd never put it that way though, and I always found this particular discussion the obvious embodiment of a Zen koan. |
|
