|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 17:25:56 GMT
Do you mean to say that the philosophical inference is distinct but not separate from the realization? 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. When you say 'independent' there, is that the appearance of independence or 'fundamental separation' are talking about? You see, Oneness is not at odds with the appearance of individuated stuff...the key is in seeing 'individuated stuff' as appearance only....empty...dependently and ephemerally arising, coming and going, within/to that which abides. You don't have to make the appearance of distinction go away for fundamental Oneness to be the case.....you don't have to make distinction go away in order to be free of the clutches of the world of distinction. It's not the appearance of distinction that binds and limits, it's the mistaking of appearing distinction for actual separation. Connection/unity between objects, is itself an appearance.....a distinction made by mind. Just as it can be relatively seen that two objects share a connection, it can also be seen that relatively they are individuated...distinct. Connection/unity in this case, is just an idea about appearing objects that mind is applying. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 17:39:24 GMT
again, i note that 'appearances' should not be defined as 'what appears to be the case'. I'm not doing that. Distinction between objects is appearing. "Andrew seems to be mixing contexts," is "what seems to be the case," and that should not be taken to mean that it's an absolute truth that Andrew seems to be mixing contexts. Context flip alert. We're now talking about the fundamentals of arising appearance....about what is actually so....even though we're not overtly using the term, we're now including 'the ground' from which appearances arise in this talk, thus, we've moved from the relative, where we are specifically talking about appearances/dream content, to talk about Truth. Yes, that's the mistaken SVP right there. The appearing 'me' character/body/mind is mistaken to have independent existence. AT that point, it's unlikely to even be seen though as 'an arising appearance,' as that seeing usually goes hand in hand with the seeing of the ground as well. The appearing me character is not 'actually/fundamentally' independent from the ground from which it arises, but as an appearance, it is 'distinct' from the chair appearance across the room. So then, you ARE talking about absolute Truth then....? This is getting confusing. No, it's a reference to experiential content that indicates it to be ephemerally arising, dependent upon that which abides, having no inherent existence in it's own right. You keep mixing up the appearance of distinction with fundamental absence of separation. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 17:42:37 GMT
What I mean is that I remember having this experience when I was young, long before I had ever heard of Tolle or Zen or Niz, and then it recurred, later, after I had and a whole bunch of other water under the spiritual bridge. I can even relate to this, directly, as well, so, sort of like .. a three layer cake.  cool. All good cakes have 3 layers Three layer cakes anchor you within the dream. There is the relative and the absolute.....nothing in between.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 17:47:31 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. Yup. And that's what's going on with the seeker too, who insists upon these in the dream ideas regarding unity/connection....they are attempting to reach a place of 'complete understanding,' in hopes that that will do the trick and set them free, all the while completely unaware that the more evidence they stack up to support that completion, the further mired in the dream they become. It's the most sacred of 'in the dream' ideas that bind and that are the hardest to see as 'empty appearance only.' |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 17:50:20 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 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.
The 2 bolded bits is the bad definition of 'appearances' that I described. You may perceive indepence, separation, sameness, inter-connection etc.... But regardless of what you perceive, if Oneness is the case, it's relatively/contextually true that all appearances are always interconnected and unified. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 17:56:10 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. again, this goes back to bad definition of 'appearances' Regardless of the content of appearances, which can make it SEEM as if 2 appearances are independent, disconnected and separate......those 2 distinct appearances are still interconnected. What you call 'the dream' is a unified whole. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 18:00:11 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.  well, for the 1001th time, I'm talking about relative/contextual truth....and just because a knife and fork seem to you to be independent, doesnt mean they are. What seems to be the case to you, doesnt tell us what's relatively/contextually true. What 'seems to be' is often deceptive. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 18:03:19 GMT
'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. Because 'no-thingness' is the case, all appearances would have to be connected/unified (and therefore collapsible/reducible) |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2020 18:07:10 GMT
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. When you say 'independent' there, is that the appearance of independence or 'fundamental separation' are talking about? You see, Oneness is not at odds with the appearance of individuated stuff...the key is in seeing 'individuated stuff' as appearance only....empty...dependently and ephemerally arising, coming and going, within/to that which abides. You don't have to make the appearance of distinction go away for fundamental Oneness to be the case.....you don't have to make distinction go away in order to be free of the clutches of the world of distinction. It's not the appearance of distinction that binds and limits, it's the mistaking of appearing distinction for actual separation. Connection/unity between objects, is itself an appearance.....a distinction made by mind. Just as it can be relatively seen that two objects share a connection, it can also be seen that relatively they are individuated...distinct. Connection/unity in this case, is just an idea about appearing objects that mind is applying. yes, as is separation between appearances. And yet it also remains relatively/contextually true, that no matter how it seems to be, and no matter how mind measures....all appearances are interconnected/unified. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2020 18:08:45 GMT
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? That would mean you ARE talking about Truth then. The moment you introduce 'what is actually so/Truth' you are talking transcendent seeing....realization. Yes, by all means, Oneness realized does say something about the relative; It's all an ephemeral arising, appearance only, no inherent existence of it's own, dependent upon that which abides. It doesn't tell you about a knife and a fork being 'relatively' unified/connected. It's tells you that nothing that appears is fundamentally separate from anything else that appears, nor from that which abides. Absence of separation is a realization, NOT an in the dream idea. |
|
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.
