|
Post by Figgles on Dec 28, 2023 19:54:33 GMT
It's not about that. You are speaking from within the story/experience, he is speaking from beyond. He has reference for your vantage point, but you have zero reference for his.
Nonduality/Oneness = a viewpoint that is beyond all that in the dream filtering...memory banks....brain processes....etc.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 28, 2023 19:56:34 GMT
Why are you so fearful of exploring contrasting views?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 28, 2023 20:15:03 GMT
By what means do you know this to be so? Are you Absolutely certain that this is so?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 17, 2024 20:32:19 GMT
Notice the nice comfy feeling that arises and instills itself as mind gets a hold of the idea and says "see.....it CAN BE known"?
All of that is but a concession to mind.....spoken from within the relative context to a seeker who is mired within the dream/story and currently not able to see beyond/prior to.
A something "that is" conscious = two. There is only consciousness....to invoke a something that is conscious, and to stand on that as an Absolute Truth, is to stand on 'separation' at an actual Truth.
consciousness is not a something that arises within something else, It is the ground to all apparent things. There is no realization by which that order is reversed.
And yes, at 3rd mountain/integration, "it's all consciousness"...but that does not mean what the seeker who is still climbing 2nd mountain thinks it means.
And please note, just because I am saying "stone and people are conscious" falls short of Truth does not mean that I am saying the opposite is Truth either...that "stones are people are dead, not conscious."
The very idea that things/objects ARE intrinsically, inherently "conscious/aware/experiencing/perceiving" simply by virtue of being an expression within/to consciousness/awareness....no separation, involves a misconception.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 17, 2024 20:39:27 GMT
"Our thoughts arise inside awareness"
"Objects are borrowed from existence"
Rupert Spira
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 17, 2024 20:53:36 GMT
That's a scientific/mystical/philosophical assertion. Whereas, there is only One thingless/thing...It's ALL consciousness, is a pointer to Absolute Truth.
One is "in the dream/story"...the other is "beyond/prior to."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 17, 2024 21:18:31 GMT
You are muddling context here. The appearance of things/objects and the denoting of an apparent me character vs. a you character, are not "approximations" at all. There is a very clear "apparent" distinction between objects/things in terms of relative experience. Do you often find yourself confused Laffy, about where your ass ends and the hole in the ground you step over, begins? ...there's just an "approximination"...? Of course not. Unless you're stuck in some kind of mystical/philosphical based musing about the "connectivity" of it all, you will very clearly be able to denote the hole in the ground, from your ass. You're invoking that mystical "middle ground" that ZD is so fond of and which he erroneously posits as a "realized Truth." Experiential unity/connectivity between apparent distinct objects is NOT what the pointer of "not-two/Oneness" is pointing to. The pointer is pointing to that which is fundamental/existential (beyond/prior to mind) the former is still 'within the dream/the realm of experience/perceivables/appearance only. How "consequential" could it be if there is no clear denoting of such...it's just an approximation? The fundamental "Oneness" that is realized in SR, does not involve a blurring of the lines of apparent/distinct objects. Distinction is not separation. It never was/is "apparent distinction" that was the problem in the first place, rather, it's only ever imagined "fundamental/existential separation." The "oneness/unity/not-two" of Nonduality is not "an appearance/experience/perceivable," it is a reference to that which is existential/fundamental to all apparent distinction. The apparent world of distinct things remains untouched...it's what lies "fundamental/prior to' that is illuminated. Trying to dissolve the apparent boundaries between objects/things is a mis-application of mind. Mind has no place in the seeing through of "fundamental" separation. It is precisely THIS very conversation that is so revealing when it comes to whether there is true SR vs. a very strong conceptual grasp re: Nonduality. And wrapped up in that vantage point that is not fully "beyond/prior to" is a person who hates the idea of giving up his/her Absolute knowing about perceiving/experiencing entities.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 18, 2024 2:02:29 GMT
True, (beyond/prior to) apprehension of "the ultimate YOU, primordial, impersonal Awareness," will take care of that idea that "Primordial awareness looks out through manifestations."
The apparent person and the apparent state of "being aware"....the sense that there is "some-thing" that is looking "through/out of apparent eyes," are all appearances arising "within/to/dependent upon" the abiding ground of Primordial Awareness.
Primordial Awareness IS just that... "primordial/fundamental." It's what lies prior to all appearance...it's what lies as the ground to all expressions.
Primordial Awareness is not the apparent, limited "perception/experience" of an apparent person. The apparent person and his apparent perceptions/limited window of personal consciousness, is itself but an appearance that arises within/to that ground...."an expression of/within/to, "Primordial Awareness."
This of course cannot be clearly seen/realized from within the solely personal vantage point. Once there's been a shift in locus of seeing from the personal to the impersonal, the impersonal reigns as primary, with the personal, now secondary and couched within it.
In this convo on ST, several of you are conflating "Primordial Awareness" with apparent, experiential, personal, limited window of perception.
The apprehension of "Primordial" Awareness is not a perception nor an experience. Primordial Awareness is "prior to" all experience.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 18, 2024 2:06:04 GMT
Do you have direct reference now for Kensho/CC that leaves you with an Absolute, realized knowing of perceiving/experiencing people and objects? You seem to be speaking there as though you do....I seem to recall you denying such reference in the past. Perhaps that's changed..?
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Feb 18, 2024 18:13:03 GMT
Do you have direct reference now for Kensho/CC that leaves you with an Absolute, realized knowing of perceiving/experiencing people and objects? You seem to be speaking there as though you do.... I seem to recall you denying such reference in the past. Perhaps that's changed..? That's a giraffe. You're probably thinking of my writing about nirvikalpa samadhi. I've never experienced that. Most of the rest of the words prefacing that sentence are a conceptually laden straw-man, so, if you want to me to engage with you on the topic of CC beyond this you'll have to re-phrase. You are muddling context here. The appearance of things/objects and the denoting of an apparent me character vs. a you character, are not "approximations" at all. There is a very clear "apparent" distinction between objects/things in terms of relative experience. Do you often find yourself confused Laffy, about where your ass ends and the hole in the ground you step over, begins? "heh heh " good one, doooooooooooooofus gal. Pick a lane, hun' .. doooooooofus yourself over " objects don't exist", why doncha'?
|
|