|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 19:02:46 GMT
Nice. That is the crux of Truth....it is known here and now, directly, immediately, or, it's not Truth. And on that note, you referenced in a recent post what seemed to be a 'knowing' of existent, numerous conscious beings. While it can be known that there is the appearance of numerous conscious beings, in actuality, that remains appearance only. And even in that, there is a distinction between a person appearing here and now before you, vs. an immediate, direct imagining of "a person/people out there in the world." These distinction are important if there is interest in being conscious as to mind's content/mind's machinations....living as a conscious being, imo, really is the next best thing in the absence of SR.  Important though, not to conflate it with SR/awakening. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 26, 2024 19:06:52 GMT
Bingo!
THAT is what all the push-back on these forums has at it's crux. The Truth...that which can be/IS known for Absolute certain, IS stark as fuck!! As stark as stark can be and it is NOT a seeing that is comfy at all to the person, which will oft fight tooth and nail to keep it's most sacred of ideas/senses in the pic.
This is precisely what's happened with folks who insist that there can be an Absolute/realized knowing of multiple perceivers/experiencers/conscious beings. Mind hates the idea of rendering that experiential content to "appearance only"...empty and devoid of inherent existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 27, 2024 17:55:26 GMT
The "lucid exploration of self/inner reality as reflected into the framework of the physical reality" is but one facet of what it means to engage life.
Does your so called "lucid exploration of self/inner reality" allow at all for an inquiry into the idea that there is necessarily a Truthy/fundamental/actual "purpose/reason for being here" that can be known/arrived at by mind?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 28, 2024 20:08:57 GMT
The question itself is misconceived. The very arising of that particular question assumes that Awareness could have an end...which also means, a beginning....which also means boundaries/limitations. It means that what you "think" is a knowing/apprehension of "Awareness" is not unfettered knowing but instead, unfettered Awareness is being adorned with mind's conceptions about it.
The true apprehension of unfettered awareness is direct, immediate...here...NOW and in that it's crystal clear that Awareness stands alone, abiding whether expressions arise within it, or not. It's always 'here' regardless of what arises experientially.
The very concept of 'it' having an potential 'ending/limit' OR of it being a something that could BE anything but singular in natuare, indicates a gross misconception.
You've jumped track here....gone from an Absolute/Truth context to relative. "Boundary making" may indeed appear to have it's inception/creation/causation within the brain/neurology, but awakening reveals that nothing within the dream is actually a fundamental "doer/cause."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 27, 2024 20:44:52 GMT
Really? So someone who supposedly channelled spirit found that in his day to day life he really could not 'be himself' due to his perceptions of how others perceive him? I'd say there was nothing of value then in the messages he was supposedly channelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 18, 2024 21:25:24 GMT
That's along the lines of the silly argument that some put forth when the "other perceivers" debate was at it's height...the one that said; You CAN know for Absolute certain that I am an actual perceiver/experiencer, 'because' I am telling you so right now.  It's the very same, big glaring issue behind that misconception, that it appears you've overlooked here. Subjective realities, by virtue of being limited, discrete, individuated, can only ever be "appearance only." And there is a singular subjective reality/experience that can be/is known directly....immediately...here...now. All other subjective experiences/realities, are part and parcel of the content of that singular subjective, (apparently) limited viewpoint. |
|
so it depends on the context and the situation at hand.