|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 15:40:55 GMT
It's not at all once you realize that the entirety of experience is "appearance only."
So yes, if in fact a facet of experience for you is plants appearing to be consciously aware of each other, then THAT TOO falls under the umbrella of "empty appearance only."
The entirety of it is an empty dream....a story, arising/appearing within/to the abiding, unwavering ground of awareness.
There's only one awareness that is/can be known and all else is an appearance within/to it.
The experiential, person "window" of Figgles is equally an "appearance only," as is the apparent "window" of the dude walking his dog past my window....anything and everything that appears, (and yes, the personal window is itself an appearance, which can be clearly seen when the locus of seeing shifts to beyond/prior to mind).
The difference between Figgles apparent window and the dog walker's though, is that Figgles window is directly, experientially known, whereas the dog walker's remains an indirect appearance.
The Kensho/CC-ers want to claim that there is a realization that renders each appearing thing/object to be something more than an appearance....they say their realization illuminates appearing people and even socks and rocks to be "alive, perceiving, experiencing." If that were so, it would mean that appearances give rise to awareness...it would mean that there really ARE "perceiving entities" behind perception.
SR reveals that although it seems as though the Figgles peron/body/mind is the source of awareness...the source of the limited, personal window, in Truth, all of that, the appearing body mind, the limited viewpoint, is all but an ephemeral appearance arising within to singular, unbounded awareness.
So 'If' each appearing person and thing does indeed have it's own 'window' of limited, personal seeing/perception, all of that is still "appearance only." A limited window of perception is not "the abiding, unboudned ground of awareness."
Everything "personal/limited" is an arising/appearance within/to THAT...a non-separate expression of that abiding ground.
That the limited personal window is a non-separate expression OF the abiding ground though, does not render the limited window itself as "unbounded...abiding." The personal window is always an "apparent" limitation couched within the unbounded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 15:51:01 GMT
Well said.
The importance of seeing that the "totality" of arising experience, ALL of it's content is "an appearance only/arising dependent upon the abiding ground of awareness" is absolutely necessary for Self to be fully realized...and many are failing to see that. They're SR is thus, really nothing more than a personal locus of seeing that includes 'the idea' of conceptual Oneness.
Oneness is the seeing that there is but one, singular ground of awareness and that ALL content appears, transiently, within/to that....not separate from that....dependent upon that....an expression of that.
So in that sense, yes, it's ALL awareness, but that pointer was never meant to indicate that appearing things "ARE" by virtue of that, giving rise to awareness/consciousness.
The Figgles body/mind is not giving rise to consciousness as it might appear...rather, the figgles body/mind, including the limited window of perception correlated with that appearance, is all arising within/to the singular, unbounded ground of awareness of which it is an expression.
Personal windows of seeing/experience appear either directly or indirectly, but either way, they are couched within unbounded awareness, thus, an appearance only.
The idea that it can be realized that a person window is "actual," is a bastardization of Nonduality. Nothing that appears is actual/has inherent, abiding existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 16:25:28 GMT
In other words, you believe (mistakingly) that saying a human is an appearance only is a "denigration" of that person.
Believe it or not ZD, it's entirely possible to clearly see that people are as much an empty appearance as anything else that appears within the story and still experience love, caring, sharing, empathy, compassion, all myriad of deep relationship with them.
In fact, absent the sense of separation that is involved in mistaking appearances for something they are not, love flows freely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 16:31:27 GMT
Yes, even in seeing the entire world including our loved ones to be "appearance only," interest and caring for those people, continues on. Why wouldn't it? All of it, including the "me character" is an appearance.
Similarly, even in seeing the physical body as appearance only, caring for the body continues. It is this way for the entire content of experience.
Seeing the world as empty and devoid of it's own inherent existence does not means that interest and caring for and about the world, ceases.
Freedom from the world...from the story...does not mean the story and all it's content becomes "meaningless." Meaning itself is a facet of the story. The story continues to unfold even after SR. Being free from the story does not mean the end of the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 3, 2022 18:33:56 GMT
You see this here is what I've been talking about; Your supposed "realization" that all appearing characters are experiencing/perceiving is based upon a past seeing. Notice how in the Segal quote you suggest to be close to how you and ZD have described your CC/Kensho/mystical experiences, there's a harkening back to a "past" seeing;
"The vastness WAS perceiving itself out of itself at every point in itself." (for whatever its' worth, I've experienced the same....just don't erroneously call it Truth...but rather, a profound mystical experience, which is what it is).
Segal, like you, is using a past seeing/event/experience to say that she NOW knows the Truth of the matter regarding the appearing world of things.
She is not there currently, presently, imminently directly knowing/seeing what she is describing.
Truth (that which is known for absolute certain) is always imminent...present. It does not involve harkening back to a memory, recalling a past event/seeing, it does not involve surmising nor imagining, rather, it is clearly and uniquivocally, self evident here and now, otherwise, it's NOT Truth.
And that's the thing about the Truth; absent the erroneous, false ideas that are mistaken to be Truth, the actual Truth shines forth, clearly and obvious. There is no need for special woo-woo/mystical CC/Kensho event/experience.
The Truth is: There are no actual perceivers....all characters are themselves perceivables, with no actual perceiver perceiving them. Imagine! Similarly, there are no actual 'doers.' All characters appear to do stuff, but there is no actual doer really doing anything! The 'doer' is fabricated....imagined into the scenario as doings/actions unfold.
So...when you say you know an appearing person to be "an actual perceiver" via a CC/Kensho you had years ago and the continued memory of what was gleaned/revealed during that, what you are really saying is that your memory of a past event is currently being held onto as a present moment Truth and that that supposed Truth (it's not!) informs you that appearing people = the actuality of a something THAT "perceives."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2024 20:37:55 GMT
An Absolute certain knowing of discrete, unique, individuated, existent entities, (perceivers/experiencers) contradicts fundamental Oneness.
A realization of discrete, multiple, existent entities would be a realization of existent separation/limitation/boundary.
The presence of Absolute knowing re: the existence of an appearance, is the reification of that appearance as an actual, separate some-thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2024 22:13:39 GMT
An Absolute certain knowing of discrete, unique, individuated, existent entities, (perceivers/experiencers) contradicts fundamental Oneness. A realization of discrete, multiple, existent entities would be a realization of existent separation/limitation/boundary. The presence of Absolute knowing re: the existence of an appearance, is the reification of that appearance as an actual, separate some-thing. It would if that was what was being pointed to, but it ain't. And I'm not going to try to disabuse you of your fallacy here because you are clearly deeply invested in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 13, 2024 5:12:01 GMT
An Absolute certain knowing of discrete, unique, individuated, existent entities, (perceivers/experiencers) contradicts fundamental Oneness. A realization of discrete, multiple, existent entities would be a realization of existent separation/limitation/boundary. The presence of Absolute knowing re: the existence of an appearance, is the reification of that appearance as an actual, separate some-thing. It would if that was what was being pointed to, but it ain't.So, you are not asserting Absolute knowing of discrete, unique perceivers/experiencers?  So what is it then, that IS being asserted? Oh, that is a stellar reason, within a dharma-debate, not to try to "disabuse" someone of their fallacy.  Heck yeah, the moment it's clear a seeker is "Deeply invested in fallacy," that's the directive to drop the whole convo.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 13, 2024 5:17:27 GMT
An Absolute certain knowing of discrete, unique, individuated, existent entities, (perceivers/experiencers) contradicts fundamental Oneness. A realization of discrete, multiple, existent entities would be a realization of existent separation/limitation/boundary. The presence of Absolute knowing re: the existence of an appearance, is the reification of that appearance as an actual, separate some-thing. It would if that was what was being pointed to, but it ain't. And I'm not going to try to disabuse you of your fallacy here because you are clearly deeply invested in it. This is precisely the dynamic that is playing out right now as "woke" lefties are getting called out for their BS. It's quite stunning really, to see that it's the same egoic resistance re: awakening to the consensus trance AND awakening to to the dream, as a dream. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2024 12:51:07 GMT
It would if that was what was being pointed to, but it ain't.So, you are not asserting Absolute knowing of discrete, unique perceivers/experiencers? So what is it then, that IS being asserted? Oh, that is a stellar reason, within a dharma-debate, not to try to "disabuse" someone of their fallacy. Heck yeah, the moment it's clear a seeker is "Deeply invested in fallacy," that's the directive to drop the whole convo. Never you mind. Go back to sleep. |
|
So what is it then, that IS being asserted?