Waffling Pointers | Spiritualgab

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

Waffling Pointers Jul 10, 2021 20:23:10 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 10, 2021 20:23:10 GMT

I love nothing more than an indepth convo/debate, using pointers to share and compare understandings re: Truth, but it 'aint easy when the assertions keep flip-flopping.

Some good examples here of why it's important to be consistent with terms and IF in fact understanding HAVE indeed changed, so much better just to come out an admit it....avoid lots of cornfusion.

Recent Reefs: Yes, the phenomenal world doesn't exist in its own right and is forever changing. Which is why it can't be the measuring stick for any kind of absolute truth, only relative truths. Same goes for experiences. Experiences can't be the measuring stick for any kind of absolute truth, only relative truths.

And yet, as AW pointed out, there is nothing more spiritual, nothing more basic in terms of realness than the physical world. That's why I don't like the dream metaphor, because it perpetuates a false dichotomy. So in the NOW, when you look at a tomato, you realize, THIS is IT! Compare that to when you are not in the NOW, looking at a tomato with your past-present-future mind, what is right in front of you starts registering in your mind as 'tomato' and then you may think: "Well, this could as well be a virtual reality tomato, who knows? And how could I never know the difference?"

Reefs of yesteryear:
Jun 26, 2012 at 10:42am Reefs said:

What never changes would be the 'real'.

max: That which changes is part of what is real, isn't it?

Reefs: No. It doesn't exist in it's own right, it only appears to do so.
spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/67123

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

Waffling Pointers Jul 10, 2021 21:07:57 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 10, 2021 21:07:57 GMT

Reefs: I think what we all can agree upon is that there is no freedom without having seen thru the SVP. And in Advaita, it usually stops right there. Mystery solved. Mission accomplished (or so it seems). I don't know what you took away from these discussions with Enigma and Figgles, but they taught me mainly this: 1) people can teach oneness and still (unconsciously/unknowingly) argue for separation; because 2) just seeing thru the SVP without having seen directly into one's true nature can result in a rather shallow or merely theoretical understanding of oneness; and so 3) seeing thru the SVP but not seeing directly into one's true nature may result in erroneous conclusions about what the true nature of THIS actually is; therefore 4) just seeing thru the SVP doesn't give the full picture in terms of the true nature of reality.

The freedom is not in the "understanding/conceptualization" of Oneness, it's in the actual seeing through/absence of the SVP! The understandings are just mind's attempts to conceptualize that absence.

The realization of Self, the absence of an SVP is not a conception/picture to be held in mind. You continue to conflate the informing of mind post SR with the seeing through/absence.

Mind DOES get informed, but again, it's not that information/new knowledge that = freedom, it's the "absence" of SVP.

"Understandings" of/about Oneness are not worth a hill of beans when it comes to actual freedom. If you're using thought/ideas about life to help you to feel free, you're engaging in a mind-game.

The very fact that you think that due to your CC/Kensho you have a 'fuller picture' of the Truth indicates you are conceptualizing that which evades mind's capture.

Reefs: Said that, it's just not possible to have realized oneness and then still argue in all earnestness that we can never know for sure if there are other perceivers.

The same absence of knowing applies to the entirety of all appearance, straight across the board. It's YOU who keeps singling out appearing people. And you've been told over and over again that ultimately, the very question of 'other perceivers' gets seen as misconceived if/when separation is seen through. It's clearly seen that perception happens ABSENT a perceiver....that experience happens, ABSENT an experiencer.

People and their seeming perception/experiencing, are phenomenal appearances. This is what you've said previously about the phenomenal (which surely includes appearing people and their apparent experience..?):

Reefs: Yes, the phenomenal world doesn't exist in its own right and is forever changing. Which is why it can't be the measuring stick for any kind of absolute truth, only relative truths. Same goes for experiences. Experiences can't be the measuring stick for any kind of absolute truth, only relative truths.

You say that the phenomenal/experiential cannot be the measuring stick for any kind of absolute truth, but you then go on to say, that you CAN know the absolute Truth about appearing people, about appearing shoes, rocks, socks and that absolute certain knowing is that they are all conscious and aware, all having unique perception, all having some kind of individuated experience.

You are completely waffling from your original assertion as you are using the phenomenal appearance of a rock as your "measuring stick" for an absolute Truth that says the rock is conscious, perceiving and experiencing.

When the entirety of that which appears, (including the most subtle of senses, all thought, feeling, objects, conditions, circumstance, etc, etc.) gets seen as empty appearance only, there is an absence of knowing regarding ALL of it! It's all empty appearance only...dream/story-content. And that does not mean that thereafter, the entire world is experienced as 'dead....lack-luster....lacking in life!'

Didn't you agree in the past that from the personal perspective, the relative, the answer to the question of other perceivers cannot be known but from the impersonal perspective, the question is seen as misconceived?

So where then does your absolute certain 'knowing' that others are perceiving come in?

I really wish you'd have the courage to engage me in this discussion and answer these questions. If we can both remain civil, there's potential here for a really good discussion. I really am interested in trying to understand your position.

Reefs: So I'd say, just having seen thru the SVP may only give an idea or hint of what oneness is and what it implies. In order to fully comprehend oneness and what it implies, it has to be seen directly, i.e. seen with the eyes of the Infinite, which happens non-locally.

Oneness is not a 'something' to be understood or a something that 'implies' stuff....it's not a quality/condition...it really is an absence/seeing through of the false. Yes, there are real-life implications as mind gets informed of this absence, but those are not to be conflated with "Truth" itself.

Oneness/Truth ultimately lies beyond the reach of mind's conception. All we can ultimately do is to point. You've arrived at a conceptual grasp of Oneness and now you are conflating Truth with that "conceptual comprehension."

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

Waffling Pointers Jul 10, 2021 21:42:10 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 10, 2021 21:42:10 GMT

Below is the quote where you say that from the position of SVP, the perception or lack thereof relative to others is not/cannot be known, and that from the impersonal perspective, the question is misconceived as the very idea of "other perceivers" is seen through.

Reefs: That is only true from the perspective of the SVP. If that's your context of truth, I totally agree. You have no way of knowing that. In reality, however, there are no others. Which means this dilemma shouldn't even arise in the first place. But you have to step out of this limited SVP context into a larger context in order to see that. And that takes a realization, it cannot be concluded or inferred. Some have tried, but eventually, they were all back to arguing for separation again (mostly unknowingly).

So in essence, if your perspective is limited to the SVP perspective, you cannot discern the real from the false. In fact, you are most likely considering what is real as false and what is false as real. And on that level of perception there is no way to convince you otherwise. That's why realizations are so important. Realization here just means seeing (directly) the real as real and the false as false. That will be the end of the other perceivers dilemma. You will see that the question about there being other perceivers or not has no real basis and is therefore misconceived. Case closed.

So again, in all sincerity I ask you: Where does your absolute certain knowing that others are perceiving come in? Can you know the answer to a misconceived question?

Last Edit: Jul 10, 2021 21:43:43 GMT by Figgles