|
|
Post by Figgles on May 31, 2022 7:43:09 GMT
I did not say that. Yes, there is a sense of me...an apparent person...that's what the figgles character is.... but like all 'senses" that one too is an arising appearance within/to the impersonal ground of awareness. Impersonal is not sending someone to feel the sense of me. Of course not. No. That's clearly a conceptualization of the impersonal. There ultimately is no "perceiver" per se....just perception. The one who 'feels' is also an appearance within the dream, not the ground of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 31, 2022 7:49:31 GMT
I did not say that. Yes, there is a sense of me...an apparent person...that's what the figgles character is.... but like all 'senses" that one too is an arising appearance within/to the impersonal ground of awareness. Why do you need to be an apparent person or have a name to have a sense of me? You don't. The sense of me generally goes hand in hand with the appearing body and it's senses. All of it, appearance only and non-problematic so long as realized as such. Umm....I think you are making my point for me.  The sense of me is itself a thought...an arising within consciousness....not the ground of arising thought/appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 31, 2022 7:52:09 GMT
Impersonal is not sending someone to feel the sense of me. Of course not. No. That's clearly a conceptualization of the impersonal. There ultimately is no "perceiver" per se....just perception. The one who 'feels' is also an appearance within the dream, not the ground of it. The one who perceives or feels is not appearing in the dream. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 31, 2022 8:02:43 GMT
Of course not. No. That's clearly a conceptualization of the impersonal. There ultimately is no "perceiver" per se....just perception. The one who 'feels' is also an appearance within the dream, not the ground of it. The one who perceives or feels is not appearing in the dream. Ultimately, there is no one who/that is perceiving....no actual perceiver, so yes, unfortunately, IF you think you are perceiving a someone who is perceiving, that erroneously imagining IS within the dream. It's a delusion. Perception happens absent a perceiver. Experience arises absent an experiencer. If/when there's a sense of a perceiver or an experiencer, that itself is a facet appearing within the dream. The ground to the dream, is impersonal....there is no 'sense' inherent to that. All and any 'senses' however subtle, are arisings within the dream, not facets of the ground. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2022 8:06:11 GMT
Why do you need to be an apparent person or have a name to have a sense of me? You don't. The sense of me generally goes hand in hand with the appearing body and it's senses. All of it, appearance only and non-problematic so long as realized as such. Umm....I think you are making my point for me.  The sense of me is itself a thought...an arising within consciousness....not the ground of arising thought/appearance. There is no difference between the two. That is the realization which has so far elluded you. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 31, 2022 8:25:07 GMT
You don't. The sense of me generally goes hand in hand with the appearing body and it's senses. All of it, appearance only and non-problematic so long as realized as such. Umm....I think you are making my point for me. The sense of me is itself a thought...an arising within consciousness....not the ground of arising thought/appearance. There is no difference between the two. That is the realization which has so far elluded you. No difference at all would mean that an appearance exists in it's own right...is itself abiding....unchanging. There must be difference/distinction for there to be experience at all. Distinction itself is not the issue....erroneously imagined, fundamental separation, is. When it's said that "it's all One," that does not mean that appearance becomes abiding/existent in it's own right. All One means there is no fundamental "separation,"....there is but one/singular ground of existence and that which expresses within to it...no separation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2022 8:33:03 GMT
There is no difference between the two. That is the realization which has so far elluded you. No difference at all would mean that an appearance exists in it's own right...is itself abiding....unchanging. There must be difference/distinction for there to be experience at all. Distinction itself is not the issue....erroneously imagined, fundamental separation, is. When it's said that "it's all One," that does not mean that appearance becomes abiding/existent in it's own right. All One means there is no fundamental "separation,"....there is but one/singular ground of existence and that which expresses within to it...no separation. There is no difference between ocean and wave. They are both water. But distinctions can be made between one wave and another wave and the ocean itself. You are making an erroneous distinction between that which is abiding and not abiding. It's not important. Waves appear and disappear but nothing is added to or subtracted from the ocean. You have said on several occasions that the abiding ground trumps experience as if somehow it is superior and more authentic. That is a mistake born of intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 31, 2022 8:39:49 GMT
No difference at all would mean that an appearance exists in it's own right...is itself abiding....unchanging. There must be difference/distinction for there to be experience at all. Distinction itself is not the issue....erroneously imagined, fundamental separation, is. When it's said that "it's all One," that does not mean that appearance becomes abiding/existent in it's own right. All One means there is no fundamental "separation,"....there is but one/singular ground of existence and that which expresses within to it...no separation. There is no difference between ocean and wave. They are both water. The fact that you can say the are "both" water and there is no difference between "them"...says otherwise. The difference is apparent. Absent the distinction of 'wave' there'd be nothing to talk about, would there? "Both water" is a reference to the fundamental non-separation of wave/ocean. It's not at all important to see that the ground, never wavers, changes or dies...while, the appearing body/person does? That regardless of the transient nature of experience, the ground never wavers? Those are your words, your thoughts, not mine. The abiding ground is the ground! It's what expresses as experiential content....whereas experiential content/appearance does not give rise/express as the ground. This is clarity...the seeing of what is actually so, not a denigration of appearance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2022 1:03:12 GMT
There is no difference between ocean and wave. They are both water. The fact that you can say the are "both" water and there is no difference between "them"...says otherwise. The difference is apparent. Absent the distinction of 'wave' there'd be nothing to talk about, would there? "Both water" is a reference to the fundamental non-separation of wave/ocean. It's not at all important to see that the ground, never wavers, changes or dies...while, the appearing body/person does? That regardless of the transient nature of experience, the ground never wavers? Those are your words, your thoughts, not mine. The abiding ground is the ground! It's what expresses as experiential content....whereas experiential content/appearance does not give rise/express as the ground. This is clarity...the seeing of what is actually so, not a denigration of appearance. I stand my "ground" resolutely. There is no difference between ocean and wave. You are the one who is confused about the difference between distinction and separation. You always were! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 1, 2022 1:19:48 GMT
The fact that you can say the are "both" water and there is no difference between "them"...says otherwise. The difference is apparent. Absent the distinction of 'wave' there'd be nothing to talk about, would there? "Both water" is a reference to the fundamental non-separation of wave/ocean. It's not at all important to see that the ground, never wavers, changes or dies...while, the appearing body/person does? That regardless of the transient nature of experience, the ground never wavers? Those are your words, your thoughts, not mine. The abiding ground is the ground! It's what expresses as experiential content....whereas experiential content/appearance does not give rise/express as the ground. This is clarity...the seeing of what is actually so, not a denigration of appearance. I stand my "ground" resolutely. There is no difference between ocean and wave. You are the one who is confused about the difference between distinction and separation. You always were! If there's no "difference" at all, then why is one referenced as a wave and the other ocean. Why two distinct terms? |
|
