Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 0:20:43 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' 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. Sure. Something appears everywhere. There's no place without an appearance. To suggest that appearances are all touching other appearances means they are not distinct appearances is a nonsense. By definition appearances are distinct from other appearances. None of it has anything to do with oneness, or for that matter unity in any physical sense.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 0:22:59 GMT
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'I know you have not said anything about freedom and that's because for YOU, all this talk is philosophical mind-juggling only. Whereas my interest here is in talking about Truth/what is actually, fundamentally, so. The bolded are just empty words coming from you Andrew because you are uncertain as to whether you exist....and you question whether experience is actually arising. The collapse of all forms/appearance, to see there is but one thingless-thing that is fundamentally existent, would remove both of those doubts.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 0:24:24 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.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 0:32:17 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. You are talking in the context of what is appearing vs. what is fundamentally so and yet you seem to be trying to create some kind of "Truthy" connection between all appearing things. It doesn't work. A pen in my kitchen drawer and a fork in the next drawer, as appearances, are independent of each other. The independence is part and parcel of the dream. That's how I can identify a fork in that drawer from a pen in this drawer. It's fine to say the fork and the pen are both appearance only, both arising within the same dream, but there is no Truthy 'connection' between them. The fork can appear just fine in the dream, without the pen also appearing.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 0:35:58 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? What if we don't have to choose...? Some tape measures have feet on one side and meters on the other!
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 0:40:33 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. Sure. Something appears everywhere. There's no place without an appearance. To suggest that appearances are all touching other appearances means they are not distinct appearances is a nonsense. By definition appearances are distinct from other appearances. None of it has anything to do with oneness, or for that matter unity in any physical sense. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 0:42:14 GMT
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. I think I see an ant in his mouth....maybe two....oh and look, way down, there's Australia!
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 1:10:59 GMT
My question is about units of measure to define separation. Should we use feet or meters? What if we don't have to choose...? Some tape measures have feet on one side and meters on the other! Ah, excellent solution to what appeared to be an unsolvable problem.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 1:16:04 GMT
I think I see an ant in his mouth....maybe two....oh and look, way down, there's Australia! And the UK peeking out from behind the lower right bicuspid. Maybe there's something to this oneness blob after all.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 3:39:24 GMT
I think I see an ant in his mouth....maybe two....oh and look, way down, there's Australia! And the UK peeking out from behind the lower right bicuspid. Maybe there's something to this oneness blob after all. Hehe....
|
|