What Is Known For Absolute Certain

Objects as the domain of "being conscious/conscious being," is the realm of experience....the dream-scape....the dream/story.

And within that story, it's generally accepted, via what is experienced, what seems to be, that people and animals ARE sentient...conscious 'entities' and that objects that appear to be/seem to be inanimate, are not. However, there are special, mystical (still in the story/dream) experiences, that are seemingly/mistaken to actually BE transcendent of the story/dream, that indicate otherwise....that previously regarded inanimate objects, are experienced as also having some kind of conscious awareness.

This entire line of ideation/questioning completely has it's roots in experience....in a locus of seeing that is firmly within the dream...the SVP.

When that locus shifts to beyond/prior to, and abides as primary, all of this experiential stuff is re-framed.

That shift does not mean that the appearance of individuated consciousness-es....individuated experiencers/perceivers disappears, but it does mean that the higher/beyond mind/prior to seeing that reveals consciousness to ultimately BE undivided....singular....fundamentally, unlimited/unbounded trumps the experiential content.

What that means is that even though there is still the appearance of individuated experience/experiencers, that remains secondary to the higher/transcendent seeing ultimately, no-thing gives rise to awareness....rather, awareness gives rise to apparent things.

This is vantage point then from within which the 'dream' pointer gets used in speaking about the perceivable/experiential realm.

It's true, discrete, individuals DO appear and with that each appears to be "having" his own unique experiential content. But there is a higher/beyond to/prior to mind seeing that corrects that...trumps that. Nothing that appears actually is the Source/ground of awareness....it merely seems that way if your only reference is 'relative/mired in the dream' viewpoint.

Reef's has argued that IF there really were a realization that revealed there is no way to Absolutely know appearing people to be individual experiencers/perceivers that would necessarily mean then that all interactions with appearing people as though they are experiencing/perceiving would halt.

But she's failing to see that as an appearance, body-minds 'who/that are' conscious, perceiving, experiencing, continues to persist, as a story, even in the face of seeing through 'the doer/thinker/creator/perceiver/experiencer.' There are some very real ramifications to that realization, but an out & refusal to engage with the appearance of sentience in the other, is generally not one of them.

What she is suggesting is akin to saying that in the seeing through of doership, the appearing me character will thereafter cease to engage at all with the appearance of/experiential sense of "doing stuff." Which is a nonsense. Doings still arise in the dream....SR means the Truth is seen/known even while the appearance continues to persist.

If one were to refuse to engage with a particular appearance based on that type of conceptualizing, that would indicate the presence of an imagined separate entity who has adopted an intermediary position.


My engagement with appearing people as sentient has nothing to do with the realization that ultimately, "individually sentient people" = dream-content only....and that ultimately, like all appearance, that one too, is empty and devoid of Truth....no inherent existence there.....an appearance arising within that which abides all appearance, unwaveringly.

Reefs has singled out "appearing persons...apparent sentience" as though that is somehow different than any other facet of experience. There is a point where the ability to see the perceivable/experiential realm as a whole becomes primary and in that, there is no particular appearance that is gets assigned a greater status than any other....it's ALL absent inherent existence, equally. Those who leap up the moment "persons" are included into the category of empty appearance only, have conceptually assigned a sacredness to that particular appearance, that within the dream/story is a perfectly natural assignation, but from the vantage point of SR/transcendence, all appearance is rendered equally devoid of inherent existence....it's ALL dream-content.

Now, please no one take that to mean that when SR is abiding, there is no longer any experiential awe or reverence for particular facet of the dream....in fact, in SR I would say in that absence of separation/SVP, it's quite likely there will be even more.

Again, if the locus of seeing/vantage point is transcendent of the person...transcendent of experience, then it's clear that no-THING/object can ever actually/Truly BE, itself "giving rise to consciousness...a perceiver...an experiencer."


That's what 'separation' is! Erroneously imagining that what you are is a fundamentally existent something that stands alone AS a ground to arising consciousness.

SR reveals that ultimately, there is no actual experiencer, no perceiver, no thinker, no doer, no seer...etc...no object/some-thing that is giving rise to awareness or itself, actually catalyzing/causing anything else to happen...

Consciousness gives rise to some-THINGS, some-THINGS never actually give rise to consciousness, even though within the dream/story, it may seem that way.

This is what 'waking up' means....seeing past/beyond what seems to be obvious from the vantage point of imagined separation.

Indeed!

Transcendent seeing from beyond/prior to ALL perceivables...ALL minding, takes care of all of that.

If the entire realm of perceivables is empty.....appearance only....no-thing at all, no facet at all having inherent existence, then any-thing at all that arises, is arising/appearing as it appears, but that's as far as it goes. The very question of whether this or that "is ACTUALLY conscious/experiencing/perceiving," then, is misconceived.

What is appearing, is appearing. To question if that appearance is "actual" is really to question whether it is 'something more than" an appearance...that's why it's miconceived.

Experience on the part of an appearing person is itself an appearance....experiential content....perceivable content.....if a rock is experienced as having some kind of conscious/experience....aliveness, some energetic quality, then that's what's appearing...no need to ask further. As an appearance, it is what it is.

Speculation that objects that are experienced of being devoid of such, might also be conscious in that way, is a nonsense.

Sure...experientially speaking, there is that capacity. We're talking an experience though vs. a seeing through/realization/absence. In other words, that sense of I am becoming "all pervading," is a woo-woo, mystic experience, the likes that often occur hand in hand with glimmers of Truth...not to be confused with SR/awakening.


Niz also spoke of transcending all "I am" sense. Anyone on these forums who has that reference, will understand why it said that the 'I am' sense, seemingly 'pervading' all appearance, the entire experiential realm of things/objects, is mysticism, whereas the transcendence of the I am sense, is the shift that the term "SR" is referencing.

to see all objects/things 'pervaded' with the sense of "I am/human form," is still essentially, an 'in the dream' seeing/experience. It's mistaken as transcendent because it lies beyond generally accepted "normal" experience....it's woo-woo....it's special/awe-inspiring, mystical. It is not "Truth."

Until the "I am" sense itself is clearly seen to be part and parcel of experiential content/appearance, seeing has not shifted to beyond/prior to appearance.