Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 14:39:15 GMT
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.  I would if it made any difference to the discussion about separation. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 14:44:00 GMT
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'). |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 14:45:36 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. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 15:04:24 GMT
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. , 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. Science would prefer to unify the cosmos cuz then the understanding would be complete, but since they're dealing with a dream from inside the dream, it's going to have to be a dream unity. Separation, OTOH, is never the case in a dream. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 15:06:59 GMT
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.  It's one of the well established hazards of being a oneness blob. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 15:12:12 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? Eggzistance |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 12, 2020 15:37:20 GMT
again, i note that 'appearances' should not be defined as 'what appears to be the case'. Independently arising appearances can, and does, appear to be the case.... but if Oneness is the case, then appearances aren't 'actually' independent. Their 'independence' is a trick of perception, and beyond that, even 'individualization' is a trick of perception. It's a necessary and wonderful trick, as all good tricks are. 'Appearances' is just a concept that denotes an absence of 'actual independence'. Appearances, in the way I use it, is meant to imply the formation of a dreamy weamy pseudo reality, in Consciousness (or consciousness if you prefer) that never escapes Consciousness to form any sort of independence. Hencely, no separation from other appearances of from Consciousness. I.E., oneness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2020 15:46:20 GMT
So what is it exactly that is fundamentally existent? Eggzistance Why didn't you just say you have no idea? |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 15:55:25 GMT
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. Science would prefer to unify the cosmos cuz then the understanding would be complete, but since they're dealing with a dream from inside the dream, it's going to have to be a dream unity. Separation, OTOH, is never the case in a dream. If oneness is the case, dream unity has to be the case. There cannot be oneness and dream separately and independently existing parts And what's key here is that if Oneness is the case, then certain particular relative/contextual truths fall into place. For example, if Oneness is the case, then relatively/contextually it can be shown that there is no volition. As is the case here, if Oneness is the case, then relatively/contextually, all appearances/forms must be interconnecting. That's not saying anything true about Truth. It's Truth saying something true about the relative. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 16:07:25 GMT
again, i note that 'appearances' should not be defined as 'what appears to be the case'. Independently arising appearances can, and does, appear to be the case.... but if Oneness is the case, then appearances aren't 'actually' independent. Their 'independence' is a trick of perception, and beyond that, even 'individualization' is a trick of perception. It's a necessary and wonderful trick, as all good tricks are. 'Appearances' is just a concept that denotes an absence of 'actual independence'. Appearances, in the way I use it, is meant to imply the formation of a dreamy weamy pseudo reality, in Consciousness (or consciousness if you prefer) that never escapes Consciousness to form any sort of independence. Hencely, no separation from other appearances of from Consciousness. I.E., oneness. I see nothing wrong with what you said here, and I see nothing wrong with that definition of appearances, though it's not really addressing the argument. It seems clear that you are not saying that an appearance is 'what seems to be the case to you'. Which is good. Instead, you are using the concept only to point away from the belief in objective and independent expressions. But, we must be cautious of reifying Consciousness. We can't say that Consciousness is the factor in why appearances are not separate. That would be reifying Consciousness. The reason appearances are not separate is superficially, because they interconnect, and beyond that, because there are no appearances. Appearances apparently appear. In actuality, or ultimately, there is only Consciousness. |
|
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.
