Post by Figgles on Jun 8, 2022 18:09:29 GMT
For anyone sincerely seeking Truth, this should be the question of focus. In terms of deciphering WIBIGO (what's happening in mind...what is or is not appearing, what is being surmised, assumed, what is being outright erroneously imagined) that question is gold.
It's a question that applies both to awakening to the consensus trance (still within the dream) as well as awakening to the dream/SR. To become a conscious person, (still asleep in the dream) is to be aware of what is/can be known for certain in a given moment vs. what is assumed/surmised.
Ideas about LOA, about what happens when a tree falls somewhere and you are not perceiving it, about what is "there/existent," organs and such within an appearing body, even though it is not currently showing/appearing,"...all those involve surmising and a movement of mind from beyond what is currently, directly, imminently appearing in experience, into minding about that.
In seeing that there is surmising about such things as organs within a human body, the surmising does not cease, but that clarity has an important impact upon experience...it means greater presence to the moment at hand...less propensity for mind to be off in the bushes, imagining stuff that is not imminent.
It is true that even an erroneous imagining can be said to be arising/appearing here and now, however, imagining that a tree is falling and that sounds waves, etc, are arising, is different than a direct appearance of a tree falling, the sounds, smells, etc. that accompany that direct experience.
All of that above involves surmising/imagining and assumption. To consider in this here, now moment, what happens "when" a tree falls, and how it is that noise becomes something 'heard,'...all of that takes mind beyond this red-hot, direct isness, into minding.
None of that = absolute certain knowing.
Absolute certain knowing is always "imminent." Here and now, or not at all.
I get the impression Gopal see's this quite differently, as in, there's nothing going on other than present localised perception, around which a story is constructed. I could be wrong about that, I don't really understand the position.
It's simply a case of a different definition of/a different criteria for what it means to "know for certain/absolute knowing."
I'm very sure Gopal goes along with the realative story that when he turns his back, there's still a sky with a moon in it, but he's simply seen that "Ultimately," we can't say for absolute certain that something is going on, that something appearing, that something is, unless it is. here and now, appearing.
What do I know for absolute certain, is a question that I think many on these forums would do far better to sit with, to inquire into, over the "Who/what am I," question. Once you've seen that what can be known for absolute certain, is miniscule, the question then of 'what am I/who am I," gets much easier to address.
It's a question that applies both to awakening to the consensus trance (still within the dream) as well as awakening to the dream/SR. To become a conscious person, (still asleep in the dream) is to be aware of what is/can be known for certain in a given moment vs. what is assumed/surmised.
Ideas about LOA, about what happens when a tree falls somewhere and you are not perceiving it, about what is "there/existent," organs and such within an appearing body, even though it is not currently showing/appearing,"...all those involve surmising and a movement of mind from beyond what is currently, directly, imminently appearing in experience, into minding about that.
In seeing that there is surmising about such things as organs within a human body, the surmising does not cease, but that clarity has an important impact upon experience...it means greater presence to the moment at hand...less propensity for mind to be off in the bushes, imagining stuff that is not imminent.
It is true that even an erroneous imagining can be said to be arising/appearing here and now, however, imagining that a tree is falling and that sounds waves, etc, are arising, is different than a direct appearance of a tree falling, the sounds, smells, etc. that accompany that direct experience.
Ouroboros: Thanks, I had actually already watched the video through, and enjoyed.
I've talked similarly myself if the past, most recently in a thread titled causality/conditionality, which I was just browsing back through.
Although regarding this part;
"Now, in a way, obviously, it does because when a tree falls in the forest, it certainly makes vibrations in the air. But those vibrations in the air do not become noise unless they vibrate an eardrum."
I've talked similarly myself if the past, most recently in a thread titled causality/conditionality, which I was just browsing back through.
Although regarding this part;
"Now, in a way, obviously, it does because when a tree falls in the forest, it certainly makes vibrations in the air. But those vibrations in the air do not become noise unless they vibrate an eardrum."
All of that above involves surmising/imagining and assumption. To consider in this here, now moment, what happens "when" a tree falls, and how it is that noise becomes something 'heard,'...all of that takes mind beyond this red-hot, direct isness, into minding.
None of that = absolute certain knowing.
Absolute certain knowing is always "imminent." Here and now, or not at all.
I get the impression Gopal see's this quite differently, as in, there's nothing going on other than present localised perception, around which a story is constructed. I could be wrong about that, I don't really understand the position.
It's simply a case of a different definition of/a different criteria for what it means to "know for certain/absolute knowing."
I'm very sure Gopal goes along with the realative story that when he turns his back, there's still a sky with a moon in it, but he's simply seen that "Ultimately," we can't say for absolute certain that something is going on, that something appearing, that something is, unless it is. here and now, appearing.
What do I know for absolute certain, is a question that I think many on these forums would do far better to sit with, to inquire into, over the "Who/what am I," question. Once you've seen that what can be known for absolute certain, is miniscule, the question then of 'what am I/who am I," gets much easier to address.
