Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2024 12:52:18 GMT
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. Oh, it's stunning alrighty. lol |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 13, 2024 19:16:07 GMT
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. Oh, it's stunning alrighty. lol Again, a response that adds nothing at all the furthering of the conversation. Just egoic lashing out. Why even bother if you're just here to vent your dislike towards me as a person? Again, you think my pointers and overall view Re: Nonduality is full of shit? Directly address how/why. Walk me through my delusion. One who is confident in his clarity will be able to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 31, 2024 17:49:12 GMT
Yes. Yup! Bingo!  A gem indeed. And note how it's pointing perfectly away from any and all "knowing" of a supposed realized quality of Absolute aliveness, existence of multiple experiencers/perceivers. And the reason that is NOT Solipsism is because the "am" referenced is not mind-based...it's beyond. The very idea of "other perceivers" resides within the dream-scape only...the "am" E is referencing there, is beyond such. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 28, 2024 18:45:20 GMT
Yes, ultimately, it cannot be known. While appearance-wise, it may look/seem a certain way, Absolute, certain knowing is not possible as the experience of "others" always remains indirectly known/observed.
The claim of an Absolute "realized" knowing that 'every body' that appears IS a discrete, unique, alive, conscious, perceiving entity, if an actual realized/known Truth, would equal a knowing of 'everybody' was perceiving, thus, what thought were arising and what actions were immediately in play.
All realized, Absolute Truths, are evident, shining brightly and illuminated in their direct and immediate obviousness, presently...here and NOW.
To know for absolute, realized certainty that the person sitting before you, or that ALL apparent bodies/persons are "perceivers/experiencers" would also be to know the entire content of that perception/experience. THAT's 'how' perception/experience is known....directly...imminently/immediately...here and now, or otherwise, it's an indirect knowing of what appears to be/seems to perceiving/experiencing on the part of the apparent other.
To know "that" the person you are engaging with is for Absolute certain, perceiving/experiencing would be to also have direct knowing of 'what" the person is perceiving/experiencing....all of it....just as you can imminently/immediately, here and now observe and report upon the content of the known direct perception relative to the arising me character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 18, 2024 21:35:34 GMT
Whaddya mean?....Those who insist that they possess an Absolute, certain knowing that discrete people/individuals appearing in their experience, are actually perceivers/experiencers are claiming to have answered that specific question.
It's for the very reason that individuation/discrete, unique perceiving persons/body-mind's are "appearance only--empty and devoid of inherent existence" that there can be no deeper, transcendent knowledge about them that gives them Absolute, inherent existence.
All distinction...all limitation...all boundary....'appearance only...empty and devoid of inherent existence...depends upon the abiding ground of Awareness for it's temporary appearance.
The "I do know" crowd have taken an appearance of boundary/limitation (That's what discrete, unique, individuated body-minds are!) and reified it as existent...Absolute.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 19, 2024 6:48:34 GMT
It doesn't! (So long as it's clear, those multiple minds are appearance only.)
|
|
A deeper dive into Renee's life and what he wrote up to that conclusion sheds a potentially different light. It seems to me that post-19th century culture largely misinterprets what he meant by that.