muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 10:44:41 GMT
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 Well, you see, that's the thing. In terms of form, there is no actuality, only relativity. That's where dependent origination points, and rather directly. Figs might reject any sort of matter-of-degree in understanding along these lines, and I disagree with that. But, on the other hand, the step between realizing boundlessness and inferring it philosophically is a fathomless chasm.
In that realization, appearances continue to appear - including the appearance of distance. Object boundaries don't go unperceived, it's rather, that the perception no longer forms the basis of existential deception.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 10:45:47 GMT
Fig.
It seems like you have a problem with folks stating truths about the nature of appearances (though you state them too).
It IS (contextually or relatively) true that appearances are intimately connected, unified, whole.
And yet.... no idea is True.
BUT, if appearances weren't unified, whole, connected....there would be no 'Truth/Absolute/Oneness' to point to.
What is 'True', and what is 'true', are distinct, intimately connected, and not-separate.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 10:46:40 GMT
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. 'No-thingness' is that same pointer.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 10:51:34 GMT
Key word i used was 'actually'...could also swap 'ultimately' (probably better in fact)... I also italicized it so it wouldn't be missed Well, you see, that's the thing. In terms of form, there is no actuality, only relativity. That's where dependent origination points, and rather directly. Figs might reject any sort of matter-of-degree in understanding along these lines, and I disagree with that. But, on the other hand, the step between realizing boundlessness and inferring it philosophically is a fathomless chasm.
In that realization, appearances continue to appear - including the appearance of distance. Object boundaries don't go unperceived, it's rather, that the perception no longer forms the basis of existential deception.
I would say it is distinct but not separate. Truth is distinct, but not separate from 'what is true in regard to the nature of appearances'. So just as we can say the separation is 'ultimately' an illusion, we can say that no idea is 'ultimately' true. Agree with your 2nd para.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2020 10:53:42 GMT
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. So what is it exactly that is fundamentally existent?
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 10:54:13 GMT
But by insisting on the notion of conclusion you evidence her claim of objectification. "not-two" really is all about an absence. 'No-thingness' is that same pointer. well .. ok, I see how it could be intended to refer to what I just wrote here, but inclusion still evokes objectification, and the 8th bull is all about boundlessness, not normalization.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 10:57:49 GMT
'No-thingness' is that same pointer. well .. ok, I see how it could be intended to refer to what I just wrote here, but inclusion still evokes objectification, and the 8th bull is all about boundlessness, not normalization. yes agree, but thats also what i meant by 'Oneness also transcends/goes beyond itself as a concept'. And then I offered 'No-thingness' to highlight that.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 11:01:16 GMT
Well, you see, that's the thing. In terms of form, there is no actuality, only relativity. That's where dependent origination points, and rather directly. Figs might reject any sort of matter-of-degree in understanding along these lines, and I disagree with that. But, on the other hand, the step between realizing boundlessness and inferring it philosophically is a fathomless chasm.
In that realization, appearances continue to appear - including the appearance of distance. Object boundaries don't go unperceived, it's rather, that the perception no longer forms the basis of existential deception.
I would say it is distinct but not separate. Truth is distinct, but not separate from 'what is true in regard to the nature of appearances'. Do you mean to say that the philosophical inference is distinct but not separate from the realization? So just as we can say the separation is 'ultimately' an illusion, we can say that no idea is 'ultimately' true. Agree with your 2nd para. ok, well, hope you can see how I find that to contradict this. Not worth chasing you around the interwebs for the next 10 years, just thought I'd register it.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jun 12, 2020 11:10:41 GMT
well .. ok, I see how it could be intended to refer to what I just wrote here, but inclusion still evokes objectification, and the 8th bull is all about boundlessness, not normalization. yes agree, but thats also what i meant by 'Oneness also transcends/goes beyond itself as a concept'. And then I offered 'No-thingness' to highlight that. Here, let's get all heretical about spwitchal espeerwiances.
Have you ever had the experience of suddenly noticing - quite viscerally - that you really are imagining all the object boundaries you perceive? .. and perhaps "imagination" is probably going too far .. what I mean to convey is the experience of actually feeling how it is the internal processes of the body mind that actively create the perceptions of those boundaries.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 11:13:15 GMT
I would say it is distinct but not separate. Truth is distinct, but not separate from 'what is true in regard to the nature of appearances'. Do you mean to say that the philosophical inference is distinct but not separate from the realization? So just as we can say the separation is 'ultimately' an illusion, an say that no idea is 'ultimately' true. Agree with your 2nd para. ok, well, hope you can see how I find that to contradict this. Not worth chasing you around the interwebs for the next 10 years, just thought I'd register it. I can see how it could seem to contradict that, but it's a bit unfortunate because I chose the concepts with care, and I can't express it much better. What I mean is, that if it was true that appearances were ''independent'' from each other, there would be no Truth to realize. Realization is only a possibility because it's (contextually/relatively) true that appearances are unified, whole, intimately connected. This 'unity' means that ultimately, there are no appearances/forms....there is only 'Being'....and one has to 'realize' that, because 'understanding' is another appearance/form.
|
|