|
Post by Figgles on Nov 10, 2023 20:58:09 GMT
You're likely referencing me here. (So silly that you read along here, others too, but refuse to engage me directly, instead referencing me over on ST in thinly veiled ways....something that if any of you who do so were to seriously look into, could potentially, illuminate much I've often said the terms real/not real don't work for me...that I prefer to use more specific defining terms such as "appearance only," vs. that which inherently, abiding 'exists' in it's own right....and then the term 'illusion/delusion' specifically, to reference those tricks of mind, whereby one assumes/surmises, or otherwise erroneously mis-takes something to be arising/appearing within experience, when in actuality, it is not 'really' appearing. The terms 'real vs not real' are murky and too general....complicate things unnecessarily. Dream-content/experiential content/perceivables/appearance (all reference the same thing) is that which is arises/appears within experience. An illusion/delusion is that which is mistakingly believed to be appearing, one will swear it does appear/arise as a perceivable within experience, when really, it does not. Separation is imagined to be the case. In actuality, fundamental separation never really appears...it's always erroneously assumed into the experience. Truth is apprehended beyond/prior to all appearance/perceivables. SR is a shift in locus of seeing from the imagined SVP to beyond...it is the shift in locus of seeing that illuminates the SVP as only ever having been erroneously imagined. It never really DID appear....just a series of interrelated delusions, erroneous assumptions/surmisings that went unchallenged...unseen. The shift that is SR, unveils that mistake of mind in an obvious, undeniable way.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 12, 2023 22:11:39 GMT
As you are using the term "real" there, specifically what is denoted...what do you mean? The issue I have with the terms "real vs. unreal," is that in these discussions, the meanings often change between one poster to the next. To have a clear discussion, at the very least, folks have to make sure they actually are referencing the same when they use a particular term. As we see with Reefs, the term "real" can get real confusing. In one instance, people are not 'real,' they are appearance only, but in the next breath, she's positioning herself at some #4 on some imaginary scale, where supposedly, the entire world of appearance, IS in fact deemed to be 'real.' If we instead use the term "that which inherently exists in it's own right" vs. that which does not, we really can't go wrong. There is no grey area.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 14, 2023 20:30:43 GMT
If speaking from a position of pointing to what is "Absolutely So/True," he might just have acknowledged that regardless of how beautiful, awe-inspiring, unifying, boundary collapsing a particular experience may seem to be, it is ultimately, experiential content, all of it of the realm of "perceivables,"......thus, devoid and empty of inherent existence.....thus, not reliable if one is seeking Absolute Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 18, 2024 20:33:22 GMT
It is precisely this profound confusion, deep uncertainty, that disappears in SR/waking up to the dream.
While I agree the question "Do YOU exist," is only easy to answer affirmatively so long as you are clear on what the questioner means by "YOU," Ina, you seem to be indicating in the bolded that you've yet to apprehend any kind of "abiding existence" at all that is certain and self-evident?
The problem lies in mistaking the appearing me character/body/mind to be the locus of awareness...the source/ground that is giving rise to consciousness. In that mistake, lies the sense of being a someone/something THAT then, exists 'in some way.' Existence is prior to the appearing body/mind.
In order to apprehend 'existence' then, there must be a shift in seeing that IS 'prior to mind.'
Abiding existence is what is revealed when false seeing is no longer in play. The knowing of it is not a belief, not an idea, but a direct, imminent, self-evident apprehension. There is no "space" between existence itself and "I am." Which means there is no existent entity/you, that "exists."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 18, 2024 20:40:16 GMT
It's not the 'whole' point, certainly not if we're talking Nonduality, but seeing assumptions for what they are is indeed a facet of what it means to be clear seeing.
And for what it's worth, your entire ontology, of which it's crux hinges upon the belief that your purpose in life is to progress upwards on some mind-mind scale of progression, is itself a good example of an "assumption."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 19, 2024 21:14:01 GMT
All depends upon what the "I" is in reference to. If we're talking about the SVP still being fully in play...the locus of seeing, still mired entirely with the apparent me character, then that "I" = the SVP.
Thus, the SVP identified assertion of "I am," necessarily is but an affirmation and reification of the imaginary separate, volitional entity/person. So yes...."an assumption" unless and until the locus of seeing shifts to beyond/prior to the apparent person.
Again....where there is still identification with the appearing body/mind/me character, that asserts an appearance as having inherent existence in it's own right...which means it's more than just an assumption...it's a delusion...a buying into an illusion.
That which "exists" is not that which appears. Rather, "existence/abiding ground" is what all appearance depends upon for it's brief, temporal arising/appearance.
This is the place where you went horribly wrong as you rose up to defend your Absolute, realized, transcendent knowledge that all apparent humans are "perceivers/experiencers."
To say "I am conscious" is to invoke a "something" that has the quality of being conscious. The truly transcendent seeing is that I am "consciousness." The moment there is "being conscious" there is the invoking of a something that IS conscious....you've just invoked 'two.'
Same with "I am perceiving." SR reveals that there is no existent "perceiver" behind perception/perceivables. Whatever may 'seem to be' a 'perceiver/experiencer,' is itself a perceivable...a facet of experience.
SR reveals that ultimately, there is no some-thing/some-one that is perceiving/a perceiver....there is ultimately no some-one/some-thing is an experiencer...that IS experiencing...there is ultimately no some-one/some-thing is a doer/doing stuff....there is ultimately no some-one/some-thing is choosing/making decisions....rather, all of that, the sense of being a someone who is experiencing, perceiving, who is a doer...a volitional chooser, all of that, at best, appearance only, at worst, an erroneous assumption.
At 3rd mountain, where all identification with appearance is gone, where the pointer "I am all of it," applies, the relative experience of being human....of being a particular someone, of having direct reference for SR, of experiencing an unfolding life story that has physical/bodily death as it's ending, all of that, IS indeed included.
That said, the primary "locus of seeing," is no longer with the human being....John doe...a mortal human being. The mortal human being is an appearance only...experiential content....what Ultimately IS/exists, is not bound by limitation/mortality.
Ultimately, there is but One, singularity...no "other." Thus, if we're talking ultimate Truth, all "you's" are appearance only....all absent inherent existence in it's own right.
"otherness" merely appears.....a "you" is always an appearance of otherness.
This is why it's so ridiculous that you insist that an apparent other sitting before you has been realized, is known Absolutely, to BE "a perceiver/experiencer."
In that, you are reifying "otherness/two-ness."
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 19, 2024 23:58:35 GMT
There is a realization (non-conceptual seeing through that hinges upon a profound shift in locus of seeing) that reveals a fundamental singularity. That though does not mean that everything is relatively "connected," in the way you are indicating there...although, a relative, experiential, arising/appearing 'sense of connection/unity,' relative to experiential content, is generally part and parcel of the informing of mind that follows that realization.
The absence of any actual direct reference for the realization of Self is what's behind the seeker assuming it is just another mind-based belief.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 12, 2024 18:07:02 GMT
Precisely. It's interesting Gopal (and cool!) to observe how clear you've become on this pointer. It really seems as though fairly recently there's been a realization/shift in seeing for you....you seem to one of those for whom clarity has come in incremental shifts vs. one big whopper....if you can let the color/design of forum issue go, would love to hear talk about all of it.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 20, 2024 19:02:16 GMT
Those who insist they possess an Absolute, certain knowing of other, discrete, unique perceivers/experiencers, of "other" existent minds/mindings/mind-scapes, are operating under an erroneous, false idea...a delusion.
In SR, it becomes clear that not only the "other" apparent perceivers/experiencers are appearance only/devoid of inherent existence...thus, not subject to the assignation of being fundamentally, inherently existent in their own right, but that also, the "me character/perceiving entity," is also an appearance only, and is devoid of it's own, discrete, inherent existence.
But what most seekers are not grasping is that in that seeing through of ALL discrete perceivers as existent entities, discrete, unique perceiving characters, continue to appear within the unfolding play/story.
And, so long as something continues to appear, there will naturally, necessarily continue to be engagement with that appearance, as it appears.
What's no longer in play in SR, is the fundamental assignation of separate/inherent existence to those appearances.
And I think what really gets overlooked by the seeker, even though it gets loads of airtime, is the fact that appearing things, as they are realized to be empty, all amalgamate into a singular realm of 'appearance only,' and thus, it's not as though you have to consider each appearing thing/facet, to recognize it to be 'empty and devoid of inherent existence.'
The seeker will always divide up the appearing world into pieces, into singular appearing things/non-things to declare some of it (such as appearing people) to be of a different class....to somehow stand apart from all the other appearance that is devoid of Truth...of inherent existence, according to personal values/personally assigned level of importance.
Because the majority of enjoyment seems to be regarding engagement with/as aware, sentient beings, it is that particular appearance that most seekers cling to most fervently and argue against it's absence of inherent existence/fundamental Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 20, 2024 19:24:43 GMT
24 minutes ago Quote Post Options Post by justlikeyou on 24 minutes ago
It's very clear that in the above exchange, we have a beginner level seeker asking the questions, thus, Niz's answers reflect that.
I personally am not a fan of pandering/conceding to the erroneous seeking entity to the degree that he and some others also did/do.
Far too often, those concessions then get used by seekers to prop up their most sacred of ideas. My motto is 'don't feed the beast' you only fortify it and perpetuate it with those meager scraps that you are using to try to lure it further along towards the light.
What might seem to be but a little white lie/a simple, small twist of the Truth in order to satisfy mind and give the seeker's ego something to chew on often seems to turn out to be the bars of a gilded cage that binds.
|
|