|
Post by Figgles on Feb 18, 2024 19:12:24 GMT
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've just changed the definition of "giraffe." Did you miss the part where I said It "seems" to me...? That was me saying I thought you'd shared that, but I was not fully sure. Fair enough. I stand corrected. So you DO have direct reference for CC/Kensho. Do you ALSO agree that via that you now have Absolute, realization based knowing that all appearing people and things are alive, conscious, "experiencers/perceivers"? good one, doooooooooooooofus gal. Pick a lane, hun' .. doooooooofus yourself over " objects don't exist", why doncha'? Nope. This is not a case of me going "doofus"...it's a case of you making a false statement when you say that all objectification can only be approximate... and and my assertion that your knowledge of where your ass ends and the hole in the ground starts, supports that. "Objects don't exist," is not a reference to an absence of clear, "apparent distinction/boundary." It's a reference to the absence of inherent existence of each, discrete object. You're cornfused. "There are no things" is an ultimate/Absolute statement made the transcendent context, whereby the 'emptiness' of the entire kit-n-kaboodle of appearance, is referenced. To realize that no appearing object has inherent existence in it's own right, does not dissolve the appearing distinction/boundary, it dissolves the fundamental one! Your context there was "appearance/relative" and then you tried to mix/shift it over to transcendent/Absolute. It doesn't work and doesn't need to. The problem is not what appears, it's in mis-attribution of fundamental existence to that. And that is what you DO as you try to work with appearance to "connect/unify" it all via dissolving apparent boundaries between objects. Is there an absence of clear-cut object boundary as you denote "this is my ass" vs. "this is a hole in the ground"? The only seeing through necessary is of the inherent existence of 'my ass' and 'hole in the ground.' You took the pointer of "fundamental singularity/Oneness" and misapplied it to relative, experiential content...apparent objects/things. This is your blind spot. You mistake experiential unity/connectivity within the dream for "not separate/fundamental singularity/Oneness." The reason we can only point to "fundamental Oneness" is because it's not an experience....not an appearance...rather, it's the fundamental Truth that encompasses and includes apparent distinction....appearing distinction and yes, clearly-cut, defined, appearing boundaries between objects/things. You do not have to address apparent boundaries by which objects/things are denoted to BE objects things....seeing it all as dream-stuff...experiential content...empty appearance is all that is necessary. No need to imagine away the boundaries between your ass and the hold in the ground in order to be free. That resolving all material objects into a singular "field" that is still the realm of appearance/experience, is not what SR/waking up, is. That is still "in the dream" and it amounts to mystical experience...all fine and good so long as it's seen for what it is and not conflated with the realization of Oneness/no separation.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Feb 18, 2024 19:18:57 GMT
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've just changed the definition of "giraffe." Did you miss the part where I said It "seems" to me...? That was me saying I thought you'd shared that, but I was not fully sure. there you go again .. you wrote that you recalled me writing that ... Fair enough. I stand corrected. So you DO have direct reference for CC/Kensho. Do you ALSO agree that via that you now have Absolute, realization based knowing that all appearing people and things are alive, conscious, "experiencers/perceivers"? good one, doooooooooooooofus gal. Pick a lane, hun' .. doooooooofus yourself over " objects don't exist", why doncha'? Nope. This is not a case of me going "doofus"...it's a case of you making a false statement when you say that all objectification can only be approximate... and and my assertion that your knowledge of where your ass ends and the hole in the ground starts, supports that. You mean to tell me there is an absence of clear-cut object boundary as you denote "this is my ass" vs. "this is a hole in the ground"? You took the pointer of "fundamental singularity/Oneness" and misapplied it to relative, experiential content...apparent objects/things. This is your blind spot. You mistake experiential unity/connectivity within the dream for "not separate/fundamental singularity/Oneness." The reason we can only point to "fundamental Oneness" is because it's not an experience....not an appearance...rather, it's the fundamental Truth that encompasses and includes apparent distinction....appearing distinction and yes, clearly-cut, defined, appearing boundaries between objects/things. You do not have to address apparent boundaries by which objects/things are denoted to BE objects things....seeing it all as dream-stuff...experiential content...empty appearance is all that is necessary. No need to imagine away the boundaries between your ass and the hold in the ground in order to be free. That resolving all material objects into a singular "field" that is still the realm of appearance/experience, is not what SR/waking up, is. That is still "in the dream" and it amounts to mystical experience...all fine and good so long as it's seen for what it is and not conflated with the realization of Oneness/no separation. Far too much intellectual mentation and make-yourself-rightness for me to have any interest in engaging hun'. Sorries.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 18, 2024 19:47:50 GMT
there you go again .. you wrote that you recalled me writing that ... Okay, yes, my bad there...that was not in fact the exact term. The "exact" term was " I seem to recall..." or more specifically; "I seem to recall you denying such reference in the past. Perhaps that's changed..?" Why are YOU leaving out the "seem" bit as well as the question mark at the end?...perhaps 'cause it doesn't support your giraffe accusation? ...all pointers based upon transcendent seeing/realization dude. "Objects don't exist," is not a reference to an absence of clear, " apparent distinction/boundary." It's a reference to the absence of inherent existence of each, discrete object...that each apparent, distinct object has it's inception in Awareness....it depends upon the abiding ground of Awareness for it's temporal appearance. You're cornfused. "There are no things" is an ultimate/Absolute statement made from the transcendent context, whereby the 'emptiness' of the entire kit-n-kaboodle of appearance, is referenced. To realize that no appearing object has inherent existence in it's own right, does not dissolve the appearing distinction/boundary, by which objects can be denoted relatively speaking, it dissolves the fundamental boundary/separation/limitation! Your context there was "appearance/relative" and then you tried to mix/shift it over to transcendent/Absolute. It doesn't work and doesn't need to. The problem is not what appears, it's not the well defined, apparent boundary between such thing as a book and a lamp, it's in the mis-attribution of fundamental existence to that apparent object/thing....to distinction itself! And that is what you DO as you try to work with appearance to "connect/unify" it all via dissolving apparent boundaries between objects.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 18, 2024 19:50:12 GMT
You've just changed the definition of "giraffe." Did you miss the part where I said It "seems" to me...? That was me saying I thought you'd shared that, but I was not fully sure. there you go again .. you wrote that you recalled me writing that ... Fair enough. I stand corrected. So you DO have direct reference for CC/Kensho. Do you ALSO agree that via that you now have Absolute, realization based knowing that all appearing people and things are alive, conscious, "experiencers/perceivers"? Nope. This is not a case of me going "doofus"...it's a case of you making a false statement when you say that all objectification can only be approximate... and and my assertion that your knowledge of where your ass ends and the hole in the ground starts, supports that. You mean to tell me there is an absence of clear-cut object boundary as you denote "this is my ass" vs. "this is a hole in the ground"? You took the pointer of "fundamental singularity/Oneness" and misapplied it to relative, experiential content...apparent objects/things. This is your blind spot. You mistake experiential unity/connectivity within the dream for "not separate/fundamental singularity/Oneness." The reason we can only point to "fundamental Oneness" is because it's not an experience....not an appearance...rather, it's the fundamental Truth that encompasses and includes apparent distinction....appearing distinction and yes, clearly-cut, defined, appearing boundaries between objects/things. You do not have to address apparent boundaries by which objects/things are denoted to BE objects things....seeing it all as dream-stuff...experiential content...empty appearance is all that is necessary. No need to imagine away the boundaries between your ass and the hold in the ground in order to be free. That resolving all material objects into a singular "field" that is still the realm of appearance/experience, is not what SR/waking up, is. That is still "in the dream" and it amounts to mystical experience...all fine and good so long as it's seen for what it is and not conflated with the realization of Oneness/no separation. Far too much intellectual mentation and make-yourself-rightness for me to have any interest in engaging hun'. Sorries. A really good explanation here from Spira...I highly recommend anyone who is invoking that 3rd, middle cake layer whereby apparent boundaries are collapsed to create an energetic "soup/field" of unified phenomenality that is imagined or even that can be experienced, and mistaking it for Transcendent Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 18, 2024 20:37:17 GMT
Which context are you invoking here Muttley? The relative/appearance/distinction/experiential or beyond/prior to/transcendent?
You're talking about objectification of bodies, so that there Is the relative context, but then when you speak of "approximation"...? That is most certainly NOT a transcendent/prior to all appearance perspective...so what is it?
The prior to/beyond perspective does not render the "apparent" distinction between objects as "approximation only" it renders them "appearance only/absent inherent existence."
I think perhaps you've mistaken "appearance only" to mean that apparent object boundaries get "blurred" somehow? But again, that is a mixing of contexts at best and at worst, an outright misconception of what "no separation" is referencing.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 18, 2024 21:28:48 GMT
That's all really well stated.
Do you see how you are clearly invoking there but two (2) contexts?....no middle ground/layer?
Considering what you're saying there, where then does this "approximation" business fall?
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Feb 19, 2024 14:33:37 GMT
Which context are you invoking here Muttley? The relative/appearance/distinction/experiential or beyond/prior to/transcendent? You're talking about objectification of bodies, so that there Is the relative context, but then when you speak of "approximation"...? That is most certainly NOT a transcendent/prior to all appearance perspective...so what is it? The prior to/beyond perspective does not render the "apparent" distinction between objects as "approximation only" it renders them "appearance only/absent inherent existence." I think perhaps you've mistaken "appearance only" to mean that apparent object boundaries get "blurred" somehow? But again, that is a mixing of contexts at best and at worst, an outright misconception of what "no separation" is referencing. Do you know how many times we've had this dialog?
While you're going to deny it, you're objectifying your own body here. But, there are no objects, remember? Rupert is quite correct in that statement. No joke. But not for the reasons he states. He's trying to reason about the unreasonable Drop the context dogma. "Existential context" has the same limits as any other concept.
Stop thinking about it. I'm referring to something that can be directly realized, usually with an experience wrapped around it. If you don't relate, you don't relate.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 19, 2024 18:27:52 GMT
Do you know how many times we've had this dialog? So what? That's the nature of Truth-talk. Why even mention that as though it's some kind of crime if you're just gonna go ahead anyway and engage in the convo as you clearly are? Indeedy do...in Truth-talk, there are common themes....the same 'ol sticky places tend to crop up as mind attempts to inform itself re: those glimmers that are not quite 'over the mountain.' You're clearly conceptualizing certain pointers and not recognizing that you're doing it. There are no "inhernetly existent" objects, but objects and things DO appear! This is where you go wrong. You're brown-bearin' it there. There is no need to deny apparent distinction.....objects DO appear within experience & are known via their apparent boundaries...do you deny that a body appears?....it's all appearance only and so long as that's clearly seen, no problemo. The problem comes in mistaking objects/things as each having their own, discrete inherent existence. You know, like when ZD & Reefs insist that Kensho leaves an Absolute knowing of discrete, unique experiencers/perceivers in it's wake...? This is a really important point for those of you reading along; It isn't the "appearing boundaries" that were EVER the problem...it was mistaking those apparent/experiential objects/things for "fundamental/actual separation."
Distinction appears....fundamental Oneness/separation, does not. Distinction is not separation. Repeat that one a hundred times over Laffy. Oh but I do relate! That's the thing....I am no stranger at all to Kensho/CC...the "apparent" dissolving of boundaries re: experiential content. The difference between you and I though is that you relegate that "experience" into the Truth pile, while I am clear it still falls under what's appearing on the movie screen...regardless of how mystical/otherwordly and "beyond/prior to" the insight (and that's all it is) "seems to be," it is actually NOT a prior to/seeing through at all. That's what constitutes a 'realization.' It's a seeing from a locus of seeing that is prior to mind and it's essentially a seeing through of what is not so, that leaves Truth shining through. It's crystal clear dude....You've mistaken dream-content for beyond/prior to the dream. Which in a nut-shell, indicates.....further, dear mutt.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 19, 2024 20:50:27 GMT
Inherent that that very question is a mistaking of the appearance of 'body' for something other than an appearance only.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 19, 2024 21:17:58 GMT
Being fully/abidingly awake means that mind takes a back seat, and Being reigns, not just sometimes, not just in times of mental quietude, but constantly and unwaveringly. (abidingly).
Full absorption in thought = being asleep to the dream/story. Being awake means 'being conscious' with regard to all that's arising. There is Being and there is that which arises to/within Being. Being awake means abiding in Being as awareness, as the world, thoughts, ideas arise. In abiding wakefulness, thoughts/ideas, the story as a whole, no longer has the power to suck you in fully, to obscure Being. That's what full absorption into the story means; Being has been obscured. Waking up means, Being is no longer obscured and thus, it can be said to 'abide.'
There is no issue with experiencing the arising of thought/ideas/feelings while simultaneously 'abiding in Being,' because abiding in Being is not an experience. Being is not an arising, it's the foundation of all that does arise. In wakefulness, the two go hand in hand just fine. Thought/ideas/feelings arise and are engaged, absent becoming lost to them...absent the obscuring of the ground of Being. Abidance in Being = Being consciously aware as the world arises, non-separately.
|
|