Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 8:03:13 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. 'Touching' is not a word i used.And also, I havent remotely said appearances arent 'distinct' Please put all giraffes back in their natural habitat 'interconnecting', 'intimately connecting', 'inter-relating', 'inter-being' are all words i used.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 8:17:04 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. i'll address this one because it's the crux. You think the content of the 2 appearances specifically determines whether the 2 appearances are independent/separate, or whether they are connected/unified Whereas for me, the content is irrelevant (because it is subjective)....it could be 2 ants, a knife and fork, a thought and a moon, a colour and a sound, an idea and a frog....content makes no difference to me. All appearances are intimately connected and form a unified 'whole', no matter how the content makes it seem to you, or me. To be clear, this is in in the context of appearances appearing, it's not a reference to the Absolute/Truth/God/Source. So I would say that you, and E, are strong advocates for separation...... You both give lip service to 'Oneness', but you believe in the objective nature of the content of appearances (to you, a knife and fork seem independent, therefore the 2 appearances are independent). That is 100% a belief in separation. I would say that if appearances are appearing (content of them is irrelevant), they have to be 'unified' or 'whole', in order for 'Oneness' to be the case ('One thingless thing').
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 9:07:25 GMT
At the core of your advocation for separation is a confusion over the concept of 'appearance'
You think an appearance constitutes 'what seems to be '....i.e a knife and fork seem to be independent, and so the 'appearances' are independent.
But the concept of 'appearances' is meant to be a way of saying quite the opposite. It tells us that 'the universe' is not objective, therefore 'what seems to be', is not the case. The knife and fork seem independent, but are not.... because the knife and fork are also not objective! Thus appearances are all intimately connected by their meaning (Niz, 'a play of ideas')
'Appearances' is just a pointer away from objectivity, it shouldnt be used as a way of talking about 'what seems to you'. It's the opposite.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 10:21:49 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' within the dream, 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. When folks believe 'actual separation' is the case, they believe one life form begins and ends in one space, and another begins and ends in another space. And although this may appear to be (and is experienced to be) the way of it, this seemingly discreet distance between forms is actually an illusion. 'Separation' is a measurement. It's not a random concept spiritual folks use, we are collapsing what seems to be an 'actual distance between'. Hence why 'inter-being' is a good concept. I wouldn't say that the distance and other perceptions of separation are illusion, but rather, the basis of illusion, and therein lies the distinction between the dream metaphor and what is pointed to by the notion of existential illusion.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 10:24:24 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. Despite you mentioning me by name, there are too many giraffes here for me to bother calling them out.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 10:27:08 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? Scores, furlongs and acres, if you please, dear sir.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 10:33:55 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. Yes, in the extreme, I don't disagree, but as to this .. Well, the thing is that relative, apparent unity is a foregone conclusion of the notion of physicality to begin with. There's a reason Physicists want to unify the four forces: they want a theory of everything. And take cosmology as another example: the big bang, the idea that the entire physical Universe was a point of pure energy at a time of origin wasn't the only possible consensus, it just eventually became the one that fit the math and the observations.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 10:36:05 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. Brexit Boris is perforating the poor blobs large intestine.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 10:37:31 GMT
When folks believe 'actual separation' is the case, they believe one life form begins and ends in one space, and another begins and ends in another space. And although this may appear to be (and is experienced to be) the way of it, this seemingly discreet distance between forms is actually an illusion. 'Separation' is a measurement. It's not a random concept spiritual folks use, we are collapsing what seems to be an 'actual distance between'. Hence why 'inter-being' is a good concept. I wouldn't say that the distance and other perceptions of separation are illusion, but rather, the basis of illusion, and therein lies the distinction between the dream metaphor and what is pointed to by the notion of existential illusion. Key word i used was 'actually'...could also swap 'ultimately' (probably better in fact)... I also italicized it so it wouldn't be missed
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 10:39:09 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. Oneness includes, AND goes beyond itself as a concept/measurement. Hence 'No-thingness' can be a good pointer. But by insisting on the notion of conclusion you evidence her claim of objectification. "not-two" really is all about an absence.
|
|