|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 26, 2022 22:32:29 GMT
First off, if you come away believing that it's a human person that "has" a realization, then obviously, your so called "realization" is actually but a shallow, mind-based insight. A true realization (as the term is used in Truth-talk) is always a negation, seeing through, unknowing vs. the addition of new knowledge, possessed by "a person."
Whoah...back up dude. IS it absolute True that a blood cell 'goes places,' and actually 'knows' where to go? Or is that just a facet of the unfolding story about living bodies?
This is a huge context mix and one you regularly make.
Again ZD, back up; Does the body/person actually/Truthfully see? Is 'seeing' actually the purview of the human person or is that just an appearance? Is anyone/anything that appears in the story/dream, "actually" doing anything...or giving rise to anything....or causing anything to happen?
There is a realization that will neutralize that very question of "How" for you ZD. It will illuminate it as misconceived. Guess what? There is no some-one/some-thing that IS thinking a thought! Imagine that! Thinking/thought ultimately happens, absent an entity THAT thinks.
You are one hand saying that there can be no intellectual comprehension of reality, but when you suggest that you DO have an answer to the question of how creatures grow hair and bone, and that that there's a 'going on' that involves complex intelligence, you ARE asserting a mind-based comprehension about how such things happen.
SR does not leave you with answers to those kinds of questions; It illuminates them as misconceived.
In a dream, anything is possible...the how's and why's of blood moving, pole beans climbing, children growing, etc, etc,...all just part and parcel of the dream/story-scape.
To see what i am pointing at, there must be a shift in seeing from within that dream-scape, to prior to/beyond. Only then are those hows/why's illuminated as the misconceived musings that go hand in hand with an imaginary SVP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 26, 2022 22:42:55 GMT
So, there's no realized answer to the question of why some dude shoots a bunch of people, but there IS a realized answer as to why/how creatures grow hair and bone....why/how blood knows where to go? You're obviously confused.  |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Jun 27, 2022 4:14:10 GMT
First off, if you come away believing that it's a human person that "has" a realization, then obviously, your so called "realization" is actually but a shallow, mind-based insight. A true realization (as the term is used in Truth-talk) is always a negation, seeing through, unknowing vs. the addition of new knowledge, possessed by "a person." Whoah...back up dude. IS it absolute True that a blood cell 'goes places,' and actually 'knows' where to go? Or is that just a facet of the unfolding story about living bodies? This is a huge context mix and one you regularly make. Again ZD, back up; Does the body/person actually/Truthfully see? Is 'seeing' actually the purview of the human person or is that just an appearance? Is anyone/anything that appears in the story/dream, "actually" doing anything...or giving rise to anything....or causing anything to happen? There is a realization that will neutralize that very question of "How" for you ZD. It will illuminate it as misconceived. Guess what? There is no some-one/some-thing that IS thinking a thought! Imagine that! Thinking/thought ultimately happens, absent an entity THAT thinks. You are one hand saying that there can be no intellectual comprehension of reality, but when you suggest that you DO have an answer to the question of how creatures grow hair and bone, and that that there's a 'going on' that involves complex intelligence, you ARE asserting a mind-based comprehension about how such things happen. SR does not leave you with answers to those kinds of questions; It illuminates them as misconceived. In a dream, anything is possible...the how's and why's of blood moving, pole beans climbing, children growing, etc, etc,...all just part and parcel of the dream/story-scape. To see what i am pointing at, there must be a shift in seeing from within that dream-scape, to prior to/beyond. Only then are those hows/why's illuminated as the misconceived musings that go hand in hand with an imaginary SVP. How do the planets stay in orbit? Hehe the questions are endless. Mind likes to know. Even that is an appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 27, 2022 4:34:38 GMT
First off, if you come away believing that it's a human person that "has" a realization, then obviously, your so called "realization" is actually but a shallow, mind-based insight. A true realization (as the term is used in Truth-talk) is always a negation, seeing through, unknowing vs. the addition of new knowledge, possessed by "a person." Whoah...back up dude. IS it absolute True that a blood cell 'goes places,' and actually 'knows' where to go? Or is that just a facet of the unfolding story about living bodies? This is a huge context mix and one you regularly make. Again ZD, back up; Does the body/person actually/Truthfully see? Is 'seeing' actually the purview of the human person or is that just an appearance? Is anyone/anything that appears in the story/dream, "actually" doing anything...or giving rise to anything....or causing anything to happen? There is a realization that will neutralize that very question of "How" for you ZD. It will illuminate it as misconceived. Guess what? There is no some-one/some-thing that IS thinking a thought! Imagine that! Thinking/thought ultimately happens, absent an entity THAT thinks. You are one hand saying that there can be no intellectual comprehension of reality, but when you suggest that you DO have an answer to the question of how creatures grow hair and bone, and that that there's a 'going on' that involves complex intelligence, you ARE asserting a mind-based comprehension about how such things happen. SR does not leave you with answers to those kinds of questions; It illuminates them as misconceived. In a dream, anything is possible...the how's and why's of blood moving, pole beans climbing, children growing, etc, etc,...all just part and parcel of the dream/story-scape. To see what i am pointing at, there must be a shift in seeing from within that dream-scape, to prior to/beyond. Only then are those hows/why's illuminated as the misconceived musings that go hand in hand with an imaginary SVP. How do the planets stay in orbit? Hehe the questions are endless. Mind likes to know. Even that is an appearance. Yes, exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 28, 2022 4:41:32 GMT
He knows there is 'the appearance of' other points of perception and multiple, discrete experiences. What he doesn't know is anything beyond that appearance because all that there is to know for absolute certain about an appearance, is that when it's appearing, is IS appearing and that it is doing so, as a temporal, ephemeral, dependent expression of the abiding, existent ground.
The absence of certain, absolute knowledge regarding the appearance of perception happening relative to the Reefs character, does not erase the fact that a character who appears to have a unique, discrete point of perception is arising/appearing in the story/dream.
The fact that you think the absence of absolute, certain knowing 'should' necessarily result in a complete refusal to engage the appearance of sentience relative to other people, is ridiculous.
Seeing the entire world as an empty appearance arising within/to the abiding ground does not mean the world ceases to continue to appear. It does mean though that appearance is not mistaken to have inherent, independent existence in it's own right....which means, separation is no longer in play. You continue to argue that the absence of knowing....the seeing of the inherent emptiness of the appearance of sentient, perceiving people has no bearing at all upon experience, but that is plain and simply, not so.
The realization that nothing that appears has inherent existence in it's own right....it but a temporal appearance, completely devoid of inherent existence, not separate from but dependent upon the ground that abides = the end of separation, which = the end of suffering. It's a pretty big deal.
You are way too specifically focused on the appearance of 'experiencing/perceiving others,' as empty....but really, ALL of it, anything at all that appears is empty! The entire world of perceivables is empty of Truth and when that's seen, you stop looking for it there.
There's still a world and it still evokes interest and engagement but it no longer has the propensity to completely capture awareness to he degree that delusion becomes the case.
The world never really did have the power to trap and bind you, it was only ever your mistaking it as having independent, inherent existence that did.
That's pretty rude coming from someone who kicks folks off forums for the slightest infraction. It's clear this issue really riles you up and evokes your ire....something you'd do well to look into. Gopal is sticking to the conversational points and he is not personally addressing you in the way you are him here...he's being direct yet polite. First punch thrown here was from you. That's how it always went in the past...looks like Reefs of yesteryear, at least the temper/nasty part, is still there.
Ridiculous. You never have to "speculate" as to what is appearing when/as it is appearing. All the world needs to do to evoke interest and engagement, is appear! Why do you have to know something deeper about an appearance to engage it as it is?
To see the inherent emptiness ends all speculation. You know there is no milking Truth from that which is devoid and empty and such. Just as seeing that a stone has no blood in it, stops you from squeezing it to try to get some blood out of it.
The most natural of all impulses is to engage what appears as it appears. What you are arguing is akin to the one that says; If you still continue to engage appearing things, as discrete objects, then obviously you have not realized there is no actual, fundamental separation.
It's NOT a contradiction to count out 20 unique, very different looking marbles and separate them into two groups and also maintain, that ultimately, there is no separation.
Similarly, it's not a contradiction to engage the appearance of sentience/unique point of perception in the person before you, and also maintain, that the appearance of all of that is empty and there is no further knowledge/Truth to be gleaned, beyond that immediate, arising appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 28, 2022 5:00:31 GMT
If the appearance of a person who appears to experience is arising, then that's what's appearing/arising....there is no need to speculate. the appearance of such is more than enough to go on. Engagement with an appearance does not require absolute certain knowing, nor "proof," beyond the fact of it's appearance. The problem is, you don't seem to have reference anymore for what "appearance only/absent it's own inherent existence," means. Anything at all that appears is a perceivable...perceivables are all ephemeral, temporal, they do not abide. Only the ground of awareness which is here, now, imminent, regardless of what is arising as a perceivable, abides. Nothing that appears is abiding...it all comes and goes. Anything that comes and goes, is empty of inherent existence. There is but one, singular, imminently known awareness and all else arises within/to that as an ephemeral appearance. Realization are always, ultimately, negations/seeing through....an unloading of baggage vs. a taking on of new baggage...a seeing of the false that then allows the non-conceptual Truth to shine through. There is nothing TO "realize" about something that is a temporal appearance other than that it is arising non-separately, within/to and dependent upon that which is not temporal. (that might sound like the adding on of knowledge, but really that seeing is a negation/seeing through of the previous falsity of an appearance having it's own inherent existence...realizations often sound like the acquisition of some new knowing, but ultimately, they are always negations).   |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 4:57:57 GMT
So I'm wondering, back when you said this stuff about sleeping bodies and such, did you still go ahead and treat a body lying on a bed, snoring, as a 'person who is sleeping'? If so, did that mean you had walk/talk issues?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 7:00:40 GMT
Precisely! So how is it that you've arrived at a known answer? How is it that you know for absolute certain that others are actual perceivers?  No...the "knowing" is arguing for separation....the knowing is nothing more than a mental position. "Not knowing," transcends all mental positions...it really is an absence of knowledge...and of minding further/asking questions/arriving at answers, about an appearance. How can persons both be an illusion (as you have said they are) and also, be "realized" to be actual perceivers? Seeing through separation means seeing that perception is happening absent a perceiver. Your claim is that when a body/person appears before you, based on that appearance, you therefore know for absolute certain that "a perceiver" is sitting there before you. You can't have it both ways...you can't insist that there is no actual person, but there IS an actual perceiver. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 7:15:39 GMT
So how is it then that you arrive at a certain answer to a misconceived question? Isn't it true that there is no actual answer to a misconceived question?
You've been waffling back and forth with this one for years...at times you insist that you can and DO know, based upon a CC Kensho experience, and then others you admit there is no known answer, as the question is misconceived...as there are no fundamental others....just one awareness within which the appearance of 'many' arises.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 17:29:49 GMT
You are describing an experience. To experience yourself as "a wave of energy" is still "an experience."
The mystical experience involves all sorts of content that the average Joe does not, but that still does not mean that those experiences are indicative of Truth. Truth = beyond mind....transcendent of ALL experience.
Mystical experience lies beyond "consensus trance" experience, but that's something entirely different than "beyond experience..beyond mind."
You've clearly mistaken mystical, "beyond consensus trance" experience, for Truth.
My own experience is rife with intuitive knowings, seeing an event prior to it happening, profound synchronicities that defy all odds, happenings that defy science....but it's also crystal clear that as "beyond" the pale those experiences may seem to be, they are still of the realm of the experiential....still "appearance only," and thus, not indicative of an underlying Truth.
Underlying Truth is beyond any and all appearance. If you are looking to an appearance to try to arrive at Truth, you're looking in entirely the wrong direction.
|
|
