|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 18, 2021 3:39:58 GMT
You know that you are. Don't burden yourself with names, just be. Any name or shape you give yourself obscures your real nature. - Niz
Yes, any name, any shape, which also means any 'quality/property.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 21, 2021 21:19:21 GMT
If the only reference is via "Kensho," the seeing of "fundamental perfection" will remain incomplete....a mere shadow of the actual seeing through/realization of separation.
Until and unless there is a realization/seeing through of separation, thus of the SVP, there will remain vestiges of the filter of an SVP and his judgements. Which means, "perfection" then, is not a pointer to beyond experience/beyond the SVP, but rather it's a conceptualized version of "perfection" only.
By it's very definition, "Kensho" is "incomplete....an opening, a glimpse into Awakening.... a temporary experience..."
To truly know and live with the realization of the fundamental perfection of all that arises in experience, the SVP must be abidingly absent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 4, 2021 4:46:15 GMT
Yes! That was entirely my point to you re: your attribution of extreme importance To your Kensho/cosmic consciousness experience....your suggestion that absent CC/Kensho, SR/awakening, is incomplete.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 16, 2021 17:38:27 GMT
Nope. Sorry. Sit back down and pick your bingo marker back up....grab your card and get ready for another round.  You are (and have been) misinterpreting "being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real...there is only being in Self-realization and nothing but being." This is of course what I've referred to in past as "full circle," (invoking the mountain metaphor) and what those who only have a conceptual grasp like yourself, usually, erroneous conclude from that, is that there is a point where you go back to identification with appearance, to take the world as existent in it's own right.... to mistake "It's all being," with "the sense of being that I experience, infuses everything that appears," which is a gross misinterpretation of the pointer. The fact that you equate the pointer of emptiness with solipsism means you are conceptualizing 'emptiness.' To truly realize what the pointer of emptiness is pointing to, is to see through the appearing 'me' character...which means the end of believing there is someone/something that is experiencing..... experiencer and perceiver are seen through. Solipsism posits arising experience, as 'mine' vs. 'yours' thereby 'reifying' a 'me' who/that experiences....also, SR does away with the erroneous idea that appearing bodies are giving rise to awareness/consciousness, it's now seen that bodies are appearances in consciousness, so the entire question about appearing people perceiving/experiencing, collapses....is seen as misconceived. What that quote there is pointing to, is plain and simply the end of separation...full integration of that into experience....it means the end of an "I/me" that is surmised to be perceiving, experiencing....in that disappearance, there is simply awareness and the world arising withing to it. Not two. It's all One, no separation. but... Important point; the arising world never becomes existent in it's own right. You have mistaken 'the world becomes real, with the world becomes existent in it's own right.' It doesn't. It remains dependent upon the ground from which it arises. |
|
Inavalan
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,608
|
Post by Inavalan on Sept 16, 2021 18:15:23 GMT
Nope. Sorry. Sit back down and pick your bingo marker back up....grab your card and get ready for another round. You are (and have been) misinterpreting "being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real...there is only being in Self-realization and nothing but being." This is of course what I've referred to in past as "full circle," (invoking the mountain metaphor) and what those who only have a conceptual grasp like yourself, usually, erroneous conclude from that, is that there is a point where you go back to identification with appearance, to take the world as existent in it's own right.... to mistake "It's all being," with "the sense of being that I experience, infuses everything that appears," which is a gross misinterpretation of the pointer. The fact that you equate the pointer of emptiness with solipsism means you are conceptualizing 'emptiness.' To truly realize what the pointer of emptiness is pointing to, is to see through the appearing 'me' character...which means the end of believing there is someone/something that is experiencing..... experiencer and perceiver are seen through. Solipsism posits arising experience, as 'mine' vs. 'yours' thereby 'reifying' a 'me' who/that experiences....also, SR does away with the erroneous idea that appearing bodies are giving rise to awareness/consciousness, it's now seen that bodies are appearances in consciousness, so the entire question about appearing people perceiving/experiencing, collapses....is seen as misconceived. What that quote there is pointing to, is plain and simply the end of separation...full integration of that into experience....it means the end of an "I/me" that is surmised to be perceiving, experiencing....in that disappearance, there is simply awareness and the world arising withing to it. Not two. It's all One, no separation. but... Important point; the arising world never becomes existent in it's own right. You have mistaken 'the world becomes real, with the world becomes existent in it's own right.' It doesn't. It remains dependent upon the ground from which it arises. Ramana's reply was a nice way of saying " you aren't there yet in terms of evolvement if you ask that question, but don't worry, it's normal". I don't know what satori and kensho mean, but I understand that Ramana says that calling this physical world "illusion" is incorrect. It is the wider-reality, the only one that exists, that the spiritual aspirant sees it much distorted until it gets in touch with their inner-Self. I believe you project your beliefs on Ramana's quote (I might do the same ...). The quote isn't about "separation", "integration", "I/me", but it is about the distorted perception of the wider-reality, due to the aspirant's level of evolvement / development. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 16, 2021 20:54:58 GMT
Nope. Sorry. Sit back down and pick your bingo marker back up....grab your card and get ready for another round. You are (and have been) misinterpreting "being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real...there is only being in Self-realization and nothing but being." This is of course what I've referred to in past as "full circle," (invoking the mountain metaphor) and what those who only have a conceptual grasp like yourself, usually, erroneous conclude from that, is that there is a point where you go back to identification with appearance, to take the world as existent in it's own right.... to mistake "It's all being," with "the sense of being that I experience, infuses everything that appears," which is a gross misinterpretation of the pointer. The fact that you equate the pointer of emptiness with solipsism means you are conceptualizing 'emptiness.' To truly realize what the pointer of emptiness is pointing to, is to see through the appearing 'me' character...which means the end of believing there is someone/something that is experiencing..... experiencer and perceiver are seen through. Solipsism posits arising experience, as 'mine' vs. 'yours' thereby 'reifying' a 'me' who/that experiences....also, SR does away with the erroneous idea that appearing bodies are giving rise to awareness/consciousness, it's now seen that bodies are appearances in consciousness, so the entire question about appearing people perceiving/experiencing, collapses....is seen as misconceived. What that quote there is pointing to, is plain and simply the end of separation...full integration of that into experience....it means the end of an "I/me" that is surmised to be perceiving, experiencing....in that disappearance, there is simply awareness and the world arising withing to it. Not two. It's all One, no separation. but... Important point; the arising world never becomes existent in it's own right. You have mistaken 'the world becomes real, with the world becomes existent in it's own right.' It doesn't. It remains dependent upon the ground from which it arises. Ramana's reply was a nice way of saying " you aren't there yet in terms of evolvement if you ask that question, but don't worry, it's normal". I don't know what satori and kensho mean, but I understand that Ramana says that calling this physical world "illusion" is incorrect. It is the wider-reality, the only one that exists, that the spiritual aspirant sees it much distorted until it gets in touch with their inner-Self. I believe you project your beliefs on Ramana's quote (I might do the same ...). The quote isn't about "separation", "integration", "I/me", but it is about the distorted perception of the wider-reality, due to the aspirant's level of evolvement / development. Imagined separation = distorted perception. that's likely as close as we're get in terms of some form of agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 16, 2021 22:39:24 GMT
You and ZD are the only ones who define Kensho this way, from what i can see. I recall when the terms first came up....prior to that, you weren't much of a zen fan at all and kinda pooped on such terminology. But when the whole issue of 'knowing/not knowing' relative to appearing people, apparent perception came up, Kensho gave you a leg to stand on for need to preserve and account for your 'knowing,' so as I see it, you took that ball and ran with it. Each time you talked about "Kensho" you padded it up with more and more starch to augment your position.
Any definition of Kensho I've come across, while alluding to it as a momentary glimpse of 'essence/nature,' makes sure to firmly state that this is not in fact 'enlightenment' but rather, a very beginners/initial, and thus, "incomplete" glimpse...and definitely not something to hang your hat upon.
You are describing conceptual, mind-enlightenment only...and very aptly demonstrating the inherent mind pretzels that ensue.
To truly see through the separate volitional person, all separation, to see all perceivables are dependent upon but not separate from the abiding ground of being, is to "simultaneously" see there is no 'fundamental' other-ness.
There is no seeing/realizing one without also seeing the other.
The idea you are putting forth there that there can be SR and then there can be a "forgetting" that there are no others, or a "forgetting" there is no entity/self, is a nonsense. As is the idea that each of these states where some other "approach" is "forgotten" indicates that there are two "aspects" of SR.
There are two aspects to SR...there is the seeing through...the absence and then the informing of mind...the impact that has upon experience. What you've done is conflated the informing of mind bit with 'realization' itself.
Realization lies beyond experience, while mind-informing, experiential impact, of course, lies within experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 16, 2021 22:49:16 GMT
In terms of experience...the dream/story, yes there is a myself and other people, all seemingly, at least on the surface of things having their own free will.
However, when seen from a non-personal vantage point, from beyond immersion within experience/story, the me character and all other characters can be seen as arisings/appearances within that that which lies foundational to all arisings. In seeing that the me character/body-mind and all appearing character's body/minds have no inherent existence of their own, that they arise and fall, dependent upon the awareness within which they arise, free-will (personal volition of each appearing character) gets revealed as an illusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 16, 2021 22:59:49 GMT
Quite a beautiful piece of poetry here by Foster....and he's right, ultimately, if SR doesn't impact experience, what's all the hoopla about? SR does change things...and I think he does a stellar job there of describing what changes...what doesn't.
Reefs, why not take a few moments to focus on there on the bolded. The way YOU and ZD "deal with" people on the forum who disagree with you, is to silence them, sometimes permanently ban them. You clearly are very uncomfy with direct challenge of your ideas...both of you. I wonder, can you honestly say that reaction lines up with your highest vision of what it means to "be" spiritual...awake...free?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 16, 2021 23:16:32 GMT
Oh my goodness...no....  ....freedom from suffering does not equal an experiential, arising feeling of invincibility. What we're ultimately talking is a fundamental absence..... of separation...an absence of the SVP and his deep/fundamental judgments that get layered upon normal, otherwise, temporary, arising/ebbing feelings. While the absence of SVP does indeed impact experience, it doesn't mean that feelings are necessarily always in the highest stratospheres. It's entirely possible to experience a feeling of sadness or temporary vulnerability, but absent the SVP it will be absent a deeper 'buying in' to the actuality of limitation/boundedness. Freedom/liberation from suffering really means freedom/liberation from the imagined idea of separation, and while that absence does indeed make for greater overall feelings of equanimity, it's a misconception to think that you will perpetually feel like superman following SR. |
|
....freedom from suffering does not equal an experiential, arising feeling of invincibility.