|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 16:11:44 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. And are those 'realizations' or 'in the dream ideas' about appearances? |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 16:21:33 GMT
'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. And are those 'realizations' or 'in the dream ideas' about appearances? For the 1000th time (!), those are 'in the dream ideas'. That doesnt make them wrong, it just doesnt make them True/Truth. As I just said, I'm not using the relative to say anything about Truth/Oneness/Source, it's more that Truth/Oneness/Source say something about the relative. You see the difference hopefully? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 16:46:16 GMT
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 When it comes to the realm of appearance (dream-content), all you have to go on if you are going to talk specifically about the dream-content, IS what is currently appearing...the dream content. There is nothing else there other than what is currently appearing. If you are going to talk about what's beyond dream content, then we're talking realization/transcendent seeing and from that vantage point, the totality of what appears is all empty, which means, you're not going to find out anything more about dream content beyond the moment that it appears, as it appears, in the present moment it appears. As I asked you previously, is this 'connected/unified' you see an 'in the dream idea about dream stuff,' or is it transcendent of the dream/a realization? What you (and Laffy) don't seem to get is that there is no 'in between.' It's either part and parcel of the dream or it's beyond/transcendent. Okay...so this sounds sort of like realization then, because it sounds as though you are seeing what is 'prior to/beyond' form, except, there is no seeing through of the phenomenal that then adds in new knowledge about connection/unification between all appearing forms. Okay. cool. So that answers my question above and this means that this 'connection/unification' you are talking about, is itself then, an appearance only....dream content.....thus, not Truthy. You just admitted above that this seeing you are talking about is an 'in the dream' seeing. No separation/Oneness is beyond the dream. Seeing that it's all One/no separation does not equal all appearing things being unified/connected.....as you admit, that too is an appearance only, which means that that too is but an ephemeral arising within/to that which is abides. "Objective nature of content"? No, I'm not the one who says that the fork absolutely continues to appear even when it's not currently appearing before me. When I say that two appearances are independent, I am not commenting on their 'fundamental nature,' I am simply commenting upon what appears. So no, that in no way indicates that I believe in actual, fundamental separation. You are trying to posit some kind of 'middle ground,' just like ZD and Reefs were, (and now Laffy) where there is something Truthy about the phenomenal realm as a whole, that appears within the dream...but still is not readily evident...thus, it's 'sort of transcendent,' which is nonsense.
There is 'dream content' and there is 'realization.' Nothing in between. All mystical experiences, ideas, theories, philosophies = dream content.
The realization that it's all One is not about seeing all appearances to be connected/unified up, (why would that even matter?) it's about seeing that the world (complete with the phenomenal 'me') appears within consciousness vs. the other way around. It really is all about seeing the ground as primary and the world as not-separate from that, but, ephemeral and dependent upon that ground. And I would say, your focus seems to be centered unduly upon appearances and not at all upon that which lies fundamental and that's why you are mistakingly trying to milk Truth out of what appears.
What are the ramifications of seeing this 'unification/wholeness/connection' between all things? Isn't it merely an idea that can help the person to experience a sense of relative peace/happiness? And as such, as an idea, it's fine, but ultimately, that's all it is. As an idea, it's NOT going to set you free......or end your suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 16:53:26 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. You are mixing contexts again. A knife and fork don't just 'seem to be' appearing as distinct objects, they do appear as distinct objects. If you're seeing a knife and a fork you really are seeing a knife and a fork. If there was no distinction, you wouldn't be able to denote a knife from a fork. Now, that says nothing at all about the fundamental Truth about discrete pieces of appearing cutlery. For that, (to see beyond the appearance to what is fundamentally so) only realization will do. And from that seeing from 'beyond,' the entirety of the phenomenal is seen to empty, thus, there is nothing beyond the present moment of an appearance or a group of appearances that are appearing, TO know, other than that they arise ephemerally, dependent upon that which abides...and they're all empty. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 16:55:18 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.  Okie-dokey. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 16:57:25 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. Yup, thus, ideas about unity/connection, pertaining to the dream, falls under 'dream content.' |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 17:01:25 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.
Bingo, with cherry! Nicely (and succinctly) put dude.  Entire post, very well said. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 17:10:10 GMT
Fig. It seems like you have a problem with folks stating truths about the nature of appearances (though you state them too). Only when they argue for their relative truth as though it's an absolute Truth....or something 'more truthy than' other relative truths. The very way that you are arguing for this, makes it seem as though you see it to be something more than relative. And you seem to be flip-flopping between what is 'actually so,' vs. what appears, which does make it sound as though you are positing your views about 'connection/unity' as 'what is actually/fundamentally so/Truth.' It's also contextually/relatively true that the appearance of fork and knife are not connected...that they are discrete, independent objects. Exactly.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 17:12:38 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. Not when you insist on wheeling it back to augment your point that all appearing things are connected/unified. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 17:16:48 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? Not an 'it'...not a 'thing'......not a someone.....it can only be pointed to and yet when apprehended, there is absolute certainty that it IS....completely beyond doubt...beyond question. |
|
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.
