|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 17:37:36 GMT
His question really is: Do you know that the perception that appears to be happening relative to the appearing person is actual? The perception relative to the figgles character is known immediately, directly. "Your" apparent perception, is not. Both are appearance only.
But SR has revealed that the appearing figgles character/body/mind is not the actual catalyst/ground/source to the correlated figgles perception...that in actuality/Truth, perception arises absent an actual entity/perceiver.
A body is not actually catalyzing/giving rise to 'seeing/perception.' It just seems that way.
So....those who say they know for absolute certain that appearing bodies ARE actually perceiving are mistaken in both contexts.. Relatively speaking, unless perception is direct, it's unknown, and from beyond/transcendent seeing, it's crystal clear that bodies never were giving rise to anything....that in Truth, bodies and all their apparent functions, perceiving included are appearance only...arising within/to the abiding, unbounded ground of awareness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 17:43:30 GMT
You would not be wrong to look at nightly dreams as an extension of or facet of overall "experience."
No more dumb or silly really than any other experience. All meaning relative to experience is after all, assigned by mind...by the person. Last night I had a lucid dream of feeding hungry baby animals and then cuddling with them and discovering they could speak proper English. In terms of that 'ol emotional scale you & Reefs are so fond of pulling out, the accompany emotions that were present during that dream experience, ranked pretty high. Silly...? Dumb...? There was certainly no inner judge at the moment declaring it to be so...and there is certainly no inner judge doing so now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 17:46:42 GMT
define "real".
The enjoyment I experienced while petting and feeding those animals in my dream last night sure felt like real enjoyment...even though I was completely lucid...knew full well I was in a night-time dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 17:51:56 GMT
But, you firstly are aware of "other person as perceiver," due to what is appearing...that means "conceptual." So you are saying you take that conceptual appearance and then you see "beyond" it, to some kind of "substrate/substance" that it is comprised of to arrive at your supposed realized knowing. That's a reification of "thingness," not a seeing through of it.
Ultimately, all distinction is appearance only. There are no existent things...things arise/appear within to the ground of existence. They are devoid of their own.
The "Truth of the matter," is that objects/things appear, arise within/to awareness, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 17:56:01 GMT
You have mistaken a mystical experience for a realization.
Precisely. ZD is very confused. A large part of his issue is his egoic need to defend himself as SR. If he could let that go, he might edge into seeing the light. Unfortunately, letting ego go is not in the hands of a person. And ZD is still very much identified with person-hood regardless of his insistence that he is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 18:00:54 GMT
And, this is where lucid dreaming becomes important. Being awake in a night time dream, fully aware that it's all dream-stuff clearly illuminates that awareness OF the dream, is not itself "within" the dream.
Now one who is not SR is going to argue that that which is aware of the lucid dream and it's content is the person lying in bed, "having" the night-time dream, but SR reveals that is not so....whether it's the waking story unfolding or a night-time dream unfolding, ALL of it, is experiential content...all of it, ultimately, an empty appearance arising within/to the abiding ground of awareness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 18:04:11 GMT
And while immersed in a dream, YOU "as the dream character" seemingly do stuff...engage with other dream characters, etc. This is the same with waking experience. You "as the Sharon character" seeming do stuff...but ultimately, sharon and all accompany characteristics and actions/behaviors, is an appearance within consciousness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 22:46:44 GMT
How would you honestly know the difference between one who treats appearing others as though they are "actual" perceivers, vs. one who simply engages the appearance at face value?
That's the thing about the world following SR...following the seeing of it all as appearance only; It STILL continues to appear.
Your expectation that in the seeing of the inherent emptiness of the appearance of perceiving on the part of the other, there would necessarily be a complete cessation of engagement with that particular appearance, says you have no idea what it means to see all experiential content as appearance only.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 22:51:55 GMT
Hey Sharon, you've clearly licked a pointer. Remember that 'ol term?  Alongside vs. within....? Obviously you are conceptualization "the formless," as being "a something without form that then becomes form." It's a complete and utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 1, 2022 22:55:26 GMT
And let me guess.... you are a.......person who has nightly dreams? Define real.
In actuality, all experience = a mental state, if that's the term you insist on using to denote the experiential.
|
|
