Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Apr 26, 2021 0:37:48 GMT
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. There’s no enemy, you are all of it and there is only love. ❤️ |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 29, 2021 1:38:36 GMT
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. There’s no enemy, you are all of it and there is only love. ❤️ Yes! .. but life goes on ...  |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Apr 29, 2021 1:48:31 GMT
Haha yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 1, 2021 21:02:58 GMT
What does it mean to treat any 'appearance' as though it IS 'actual'? Fact is, because seeing appearances as empty does not mean that the appearances stops appearing, you cannot tell one is not assigning it separate existence in it's own right, just by observation. That would only be the case IF in seeing through appearances, if, in seeing them to all be empty and devoid of Truth, they suddenly stopped appearing altogether and we know that doesn't happen. Even after seeing the inherent emptiness of all appearances, they continue to appear.
Appearances are all empty of inherent absoluteness/Truth/actuality, thus, An 'actual' perceiver then, is of the same class as an 'actual' tree. What does that even mean then, in terms of how you 'treat it'? How would you know if someone was engaging an appearing tree as though it was an actual living tree, vs. a mere appearance? Do you see now why it's so silly that you are calling out those of us who say there is an absence of absolute knowing relative to appearing people, as not walking our talk?
The problem is, you've not grasped that the 'entirety' of the realm of appearance/perceivables gets seen to be 'empty and devoid of inherent existence/actuality,' thus, in terms of that absence, an appearing person who apparently perceives is no different than an appearing tree that appears to be alive, or even an appearing shoe that appears inert and absent life. So, yes, even the appearance of aliveness (and inertness/absence of life) IS empty appearance only. The very idea of knowing 'beyond' that appearance involves a misconception.
Like you, may are ok with the idea that all perceivables are empty of Truth, up and until it suddenly gets mentioned that 'experiencing people' are also perceivables/appearance only. That is the one singular appearance that they insist is something more than just an appearance. The entire appearing world and all appearing things inherent to it are part and parcel of the 'dream-scape'...you don't get to single out specific appearances that are especially compelling to declare them a special case. ALL appearances in the dream arise within/to that which abides. That which abides does not arise within/to an appearance...if that were the case then you could say separation is the case. (It's not!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 1, 2021 21:18:58 GMT
I suspect what he was trying to tell you is that there is no pat, conceptual answer to that question....that the question itself was seen to be misconceived because the very idea of being a 'who' (or a 'what') was seen to be a nonsense.
Seriously ZD, if you come away believing you've acquired, new, absolute knowledge about 'who' you are, or that you have a "Precise" handle on what you are, you've clearly mistaken a conceptual idea for the Truth. SR is always a seeing through/subtraction, not the acquisition of knowledge about being a 'who/what/something.'
And if you find yourself assigning value to the seeking that was prior to SR, thinking it is the most important adventure a human can take, then clearly you've mistaken the seeker's journey as causal to SR. It's not. The seeker is what obscures that which is otherwise clearly obvious.
It's not a human form/person that 'finds' the Truth. If the Truth is found, (revealed) then the human form is clearly seen to be an empty appearance only....it was in fact the taking of what I am to be a human who does and controls stuff, that was only ever standing in the way of clarity.
Indeed, there are no 'wrong' pathways to SR, as that would imply there are 'right' pathways to SR. Truth is, there is no causal path/process to SR. SR illuminates all previous ideas about pathways, as false.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 1, 2021 21:45:11 GMT
I'd say a 'shrug' is also in that category of 'creative way of turning the question back on the questioner.' Neither of those responses, "I am what is asking your question" nor "speak, speak" are indications of the discovery of a 'who/what' but rather, a seeing of what remains when separation/the SVP is seen through.
Your insistence on a 'more straight-forward answer' indicates mind's involvement. What you are defies all conceptualization. I'd say a shrug is rather perfect. The less said, the better when it comes to pointing to 'what' you are, simply because mind's propensity to grasp onto an idea of 'what-ness' is so strong.
Seeing what you are hinges upon a seeing of what is not so....a subtraction rather than an addition of knowledge. All added knowledge is the informing of mind following realization, NOT the realization itself. Those who answer the question of 'whatness' in concrete terms/affirmative knowing like you do, are speaking from mind's idea of whatness, whereas a shrug pays homage to the absence/seeing through...the 'not knowing' inherent to realization.
In SR there is only one realization that matters; The seeing through of separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 13, 2021 19:36:35 GMT
When it's said that all appearance is empty of Truth and that the experience that appears to be happening relative to appearing bodies, also falls under 'appearance only,' thus, ultimately, there is no actual seeing/knowing OF 'your' experience beyond the appearance of such, it's important to understand what's actually being said.
Many have read all sorts of erroneous ideas into that pointer that says ALL appearances (including that of experiencing/perceiving/conscious bodies) are empty, dream-stuff.
The main erroneous idea clearly being, that the pointer indicates a "my" experience that is known to be actual, relative to a "your" experience, which is unknown.
Awakening/Self Realization reveals there is no "my" experience!....it reveals that ultimately, it's all unfolding impersonally...absent a me/entity.....it reveals there is but one, singular dream that is arising, not-separate from--within/to that which abides....only one singular dream that is known to be....and here's the kicker; It's arising TO no-one....the knowing/awareness that it's arising/appearing does not belong to any-body....not to any-one/any-thing.
The appearing world is known to be appearing, absent a someone/something/entity THAT knows.
So, for all who have their panties in bunch, accusing metaphysical solipsism....or philosphical solipsism on the part of those who point to 'not knowing' relative to apparent multiple experiencers, stop right where you are to consider this:
When I say 'your' experience is an appearance only and ultimately remains unknown, I am NOT saying that "MY" experience is more than just an appearance...I am NOT saying "MY" experience IS known.
I am saying "The" one and only, singular experience.....singular appearing/arising world, is known to be appearing, immediately, presently, by no-one.
And, to even speak of 'your' experience, or of 'my' experience is to enter back into the dream of appearance only, where even so much of what we think is actually appearing, is merely surmised.
There is a huge difference between one who is awake saying; "I do not know if you are actually experiencing," vs. one who is still asleep. The one who is still asleep is taking the singular experience he directly knows to be 'his'....he has taken personal ownership of "The" experience...of "The" appearing world. There is no such thing.
There is just "this"....the ground and all that arises/appears within/to it...no separation....no actual personal ownership, stewardship or command over any of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 5, 2021 6:06:24 GMT
I'm gonna stick with what I'm saying in the OP and instead of the term "Solipsism" which has it's roots in philosophy vs. realization, I will use the term "not knowing."
But yes, your point is accurate. Reefs has acknowledged that from the personal perspective, he does not know and that from beyond, impersonal perspective, the very question/idea is seen to be misconceived.
And yet, now he seems to be suggesting (again) that he does in fact know somehow that appearing people are for absolute certain, are perceiving. He can't have it all ways; Admit he doesn't know from personal perspective, that the very question is misconceived from impersonal, but then he somehow has arrived at an answer to a misconceived question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 6, 2021 21:17:11 GMT
All of that...Really well said. For some reason, Reefs doesn't talk about "empty appearance only" anymore. He most definitely did though in the past. I think it stopped when the whole convo about 'not knowing' came up and he labelled that Solipsism, claiming that he did know for certain that appearing people are perceiving, conscious, experiencing. I do get why he'd have to stop talking about "empty appearance only" in asserting that. The two are at odds. These quotes below really do though seem to indicate that at least at one point, he grasped the concept of appearances as empty; and this one in particular: In that one bolded line, "a person that is sleeping and dreaming," he seems to be saying that while there may be the appearance of a sleeping human body, there is no actual knowing about 'sleeping and dreaming,' actually happening there. ......That in saying you know there is sleeping/dreaming person there, there is 'imagining' happening. To which I would say, "Bingo"! 
~Gopal: "If you know that what you are seeing is merely an appearance, you must be knowing the truth that actuality beyond the appearance can't be known." Yes! Now apply what you are saying there to the issue of somehow knowing for absolute certain that the appearance of past/present pattern in experience (feelings manifesting outcome) will continue on that way into the future. That pattern is an appearance only. Empty. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 14, 2021 5:30:24 GMT
Bingo!
Apply that to this nonsense:
Throughout the years as this "not knowing" vs. "I do know that people, shoes, paperclips are alive, conscious, perceiving, experiencing" discussion has gone back and forth, you've repeatedly fallen back on that Jeff Foster Trap argument re: walk/talk not matching.
I've explained it over and over to you, changing the wording in case that's the obstacle...trying to convey precisely what you are saying above there....perhaps now your very own words will hit home and put that silly argument of yours to rest.
Applied directly to the "not knowing" issue; That you still engage the appearance of experience happening relative to the appearing person, does not mean that you are devoid of the realization of the inherent emptiness of that appearance.
It really is exactly the same thing as answering to your name when someone calls, even though you have seen through separate personhood.
|
|
