Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2020 17:11:46 GMT
Oneness/No-thingness excludes nothing, it includes all apparent forms, and all apparent past, present and future. Oneness is not a reference to 'the unification' of a bunch of appearing stuff....rather, it's the seeing that all appearing stuff, is appearance only, having no independent fundamental ground of it's own. You've created a Oneness blob that then includes everything. In short, you have conceptualized Oneness. Oneness includes, AND goes beyond itself as a concept/measurement. Hence 'No-thingness' can be a good pointer.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2020 17:15:36 GMT
Are appearances 'actually' separate? If not, then they must be 'intimately connected'. The tree and the moon.
If we look close enough at this, we see there are no appearances. Just 'one thingless thing'.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2020 18:02:04 GMT
in the context that we say appearancs are appearing, or forms are forming, separation can be said to be 'illusion' but forms/appearances are not. Hence, the tree and moon appear, but the separation between them is not 'actual' or 'fundamental' You are conflating the experience of 'discrete' objects, an appearance that is inherent to the phenomenal world and all it's things, with fundamental separation. You've clearly licked the pointer of 'no separation,'....your grasp of Oneness is obviously just a concept. Oneness is not a reference to the experiential distance/disconnect between two objects equaling 'illusion/not actual'. Experiential distance/disconnect between things does appear.....discrete objects DO appear....and there is no problem in seeing them as discrete. When it's said that distinction is mistaken for separation, the crux of that reference is the 'me' distinction, mistaken to be evidence of independent, inherent, existence.
Yes, in seeing 'it's all One,' that also means no separation between appearing stuff, but the real significance of that is that no-thing exists independent of the ground from which it arises and is thus, absent it's own inherent, separate existence.
It's the mistake of "I am a thing/entity that has it's own inherent, separate existence" that goes hand in hand with suffering.
You've got entirely the wrong idea about what it means to see through separation....realizing Oneness. Not separate = absent inherent, fundamental, independent existence in it's own right. Seeing the entire phenomenal realm as 'an appearance only' that arises within/to that which inherently exists, takes care of that erroneous idea. (And keep in mind, that idea need not be a well formulated one that the person is aware of....it's insidious and sneaky....subtle and yet when seen for what it is, so entirely obviously false. The separation that gets seen through in SR, is not 'the appearance of objects as discrete'....rather,it is 'fundamental, independent existence in it's own right' that gets seen through. Fundamental separation/independent existence, never actually appears within experience, it's merely a mistake of mind, thus, there's nothing you can point to in experience that gets seen to be an illusion in the seeing of 'fundamental separation' as illusion....it's minds mistake that gets seen to be the illusion.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2020 18:08:47 GMT
If you are going to collapse the apparent distance between forms, and call it illusion, then you also must collapse those forms...they are all appearance...all contextually the same. You don't get to just collapse one appearance and leave the other. As I said, there are no forms/appearances. Are you sure you read what's said? But we don't have to 'collapse' either the appearance of objects being 'discrete' or of the general appearance of form for suffering to end...for freedom to be. All that matters is that mind's mistake...the erroneous idea of separation (fundamental, inherent existence of an appearing me, appearing things) is seen through. The discrete forms can continue to appear....they are not the problem so long as they are seen to be 'appearance only,' having no inherent, independent existence in their own right, but rather, arise within/to that which does exist in it's own right. The appearing world need not be collapsed to be free.....you just need to stop seeing the appearing world as something that has objective, independent existence in it's own right...you need to see that the world arises in you, rather than you arise in the world.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2020 19:49:00 GMT
in the context that we say appearancs are appearing, or forms are forming, separation can be said to be 'illusion' but forms/appearances are not. Hence, the tree and moon appear, but the separation between them is not 'actual' or 'fundamental' You are conflating the experience of 'discrete' objects, an appearance that is inherent to the phenomenal world and all it's things, with fundamental separation. You've clearly licked the pointer of 'no separation,'....your grasp of Oneness is obviously just a concept. Oneness is not a reference to the experiential distance/disconnect between two objects equaling 'illusion/not actual'. Experiential distance/disconnect between things does appear.....discrete objects DO appear....and there is no problem in seeing them as discrete. When it's said that distinction is mistaken for separation, the crux of that reference is the 'me' distinction, mistaken to be evidence of independent, inherent, existence.
Yes, in seeing 'it's all One,' that also means no separation between appearing stuff, but the real significance of that is that no-thing exists independent of the ground from which it arises and is thus, absent it's own inherent, separate existence.
It's the mistake of "I am a thing/entity that has it's own inherent, separate existence" that goes hand in hand with suffering.
You've got entirely the wrong idea about what it means to see through separation....realizing Oneness. Not separate = absent inherent, fundamental, independent existence in it's own right. Seeing the entire phenomenal realm as 'an appearance only' that arises within/to that which inherently exists, takes care of that erroneous idea. (And keep in mind, that idea need not be a well formulated one that the person is aware of....it's insidious and sneaky....subtle and yet when seen for what it is, so entirely obviously false. The separation that gets seen through in SR, is not 'the appearance of objects as discrete'....rather,it is 'fundamental, independent existence in it's own right' that gets seen through. Fundamental separation/independent existence, never actually appears within experience, it's merely a mistake of mind, thus, there's nothing you can point to in experience that gets seen to be an illusion in the seeing of 'fundamental separation' as illusion....it's minds mistake that gets seen to be the illusion. Firstly, 'discrete' means 'independent existence'. They both mean 'separate'. It means one appearance is disconnected from another appearance. So...an example... an appearing ant in apparent Australia, and an appearing ant in apparent UK, appear to be discrete, independent, disconnected, separate from each other. But we know there is no actuality to this apparent independence, discreteness, disconnectedness, separateness. The separation is ultimately an illusion. In this sense, a trick of perception. Now, a leaf on a tree can still be said to be distinct from the tree, and therefore apparently separate to a degree, but the absence of actual separation is more obvious. So, if the apparent independence, discreteness, disconnectedness, separateness is ultimately illusion, then what is the relative relationship between the ants? Are the ants intimately connected, for example?
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2020 19:51:21 GMT
As I said, there are no forms/appearances. Are you sure you read what's said? But we don't have to 'collapse' either the appearance of objects being 'discrete' or of the general appearance of form for suffering to end...for freedom to be. All that matters is that mind's mistake...the erroneous idea of separation (fundamental, inherent existence of an appearing me, appearing things) is seen through. The discrete forms can continue to appear....they are not the problem so long as they are seen to be 'appearance only,' having no inherent, independent existence in their own right, but rather, arise within/to that which does exist in it's own right. The appearing world need not be collapsed to be free.....you just need to stop seeing the appearing world as something that has objective, independent existence in it's own right...you need to see that the world arises in you, rather than you arise in the world. i havent said anything about freedom, I'm just saying that it can be seen there are no forms/appearances. There's just 'one thingless thing'
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2020 22:16:14 GMT
okay, here's the simple question...
Do you agree that no appearance appears (or no form forms)....''independently'' of another appearing appearance (or forming form)?
'independent' is a word you often use.
If you agree that these 2 appearances are not independent of each other, then by definition, they 'relate' or 'connect' to each other in some way.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 0:04:33 GMT
Seems odd as hell creating a thread to clear this up at this point, but conversations I've had recently with both Andrew and Muttley indicate it's necessary. To see through 'separation,' is to realize that nothing that appears has inherent, fundamental existence in it's own right....that everything experienced arises within/to that which is fundamentally existent....it's all One. The "Separation" in "no separation" is not a reference to the appearance of distance/space between objects. Oneness/not separate is a reference to that which is actually so....fundamentally so. I'm shocked to see some think it relates somehow to "apparent distance between objects/things," and thus, they wrongly arrive at the idea that seeing through separation involves that apparent distance changing to apparent unity. Fundamental separation does not actually appear....it's mistakingly inferred. Thus, appearing distance between objects does not have to go away, for Oneness to be realized. "Fundamental separation" never actually appears. It's a mistake of mind. Similarly, "Oneness" is not something that appears, is not something that you can look to the dream or dream content, to see, either as a reflection, a shadow, a hint, a glimmer. Oneness is realized 'non-conceptually' or not at all....it's a seeing that happens 'beyond' the dream. Oneness does not appear phenomenally as unification between objects, in contrast to previously seeing distance/space between objects (Laffy...this is where you go wrong with your whole; 'Reflections to underlying formless unity', deal. If you think you are seeing 'underlying Oneness' observing appearances....within dream-content, you are mistaken. What's most likely is that you are conflating your conceptual understanding of Oneness with 'fundamental/absolute' Oneness. A sure sign there's still an SVP involved. Everything that is experienced is empty and devoid of Truth. Which means, you cannot look to experience to tell you what is absolutely, fundamentally so....you are not going to find the absence of separation/Oneness "IN" dream-content. Not even a reflection. What's required is a paradigm shift of a magnitude that the person has never experienced. My question is about units of measure to define separation. Should we use feet or meters?
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 0:09:12 GMT
is both a measurement and a pointer If there's no actual distance between forms, then at the furthest point, there are no forms. There is only 'One thingless thing'...'Oneness'. Also realized to be 'No-thingness' Okay, yer kidding, right?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 0:13:19 GMT
Firstly, 'discrete' means 'independent existence'. They both mean 'separate'. It means one appearance is disconnected from another appearance. I sure can't find a dictionary where there's a reference to 'existence.' (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, oxford) What dictionary uses the term 'independent existence'? Yes, space/distance/disconnect (separation between this object and that object) is yet just one more appearance arising in the realm of the phenomenal. Not to be confused with 'fundamentally not separate, aka "not independently, fundamentally existent in it's own right." Truth is always about what is Fundamentally So.....vs. what is experienced. And when what is experienced gets mistaken for what is fundamentally so, that which is fundamentally so, gets obscured and that goes hand in hand with suffering. Being free necessitates seeing past what is experienced to what is fundamentally so. If you could perhaps remind yourself of that prior to these conversations, we wouldn't get strange contextual mix-ups like this. The experience of 'disconnect/divide' between two things places is not an illusion. It's an appearance only. Keep in mind: Truth is all about seeing through that which obscures and thus creates suffering. The experience of an ant over here and another over there that does not touch or connect with this one over here, has no propensity to cause suffering. However, taking what you really are to be an independently existent entity that exists in its own right, does. It's really okay to experience distinct/discrete ants and places. Even once fundamental separation is seen through, you will still experience Australia to be a distance away from UK. "Connection" between appearing objects, is itself is an appearance only...an in the dream experience or an idea about the dream. So long as we're Truth-talking, so long as we're talking about what is 'fundamentally so,' the term 'connection' has no place. You are using it there as though there can be 'fundamental' connection....but that's a nonsense. Not separate/Oneness is not a reference to a whole bunch of stuff that's connected.
|
|