|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 24, 2023 1:34:12 GMT
Well, & that's the thing; Once there is no longer any question of fundamental separation, (SR) all those kinds of questions about multiple perceivers and such, cease...they are all misconceived. You cannot milk Absolute Truth out of the relative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 24, 2023 20:01:23 GMT
I think it would be a mistake to assume that what he's saying there equals absolute knowing that appearing people/objects/things are perceivers/experiencers.
Interaction between the me character and all other appearing characters and all appearing things/objects/perceivables does indeed continue on post SR, but that does not mean heading back to 1st mountain position to once again have absolute knowing that body/minds are giving rise to consciousness...that sentient people are something more than appearance arising dependent upon that which abides...that people are entities that have their own inherent existence.
To "be" absent a set locus of seeing does mean that there is a freedom to 'being'....the experiential 'sense' of no boundaries between the me character, other people, other things, really IS part and parcel of the informing of mind facet of SR, but it's important to recognize that as an experiential facet of a realization which lies beyond all experience, the experiential impacts are not the realization and thus, cannot be said to be "Absolute Truth."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 20:37:33 GMT
If we are talking about what is ultimately, Absolutely so....talking about Truth....speaking from a place of seeing that is transcendent of the personal point of perception, then it IS indeed correct.
If we are talking relative, within the story, personal vantage point only, then people who "do, think" stuff, is fine. However, while the awakened might still at times speak as though they as a person are doing stuff, there is knowing that that is appearance only....a facet of the dream.
You do seem to acknowledge in the above post that there ARE two perspectives...a relative and an absolute, but what you fail to grasp and acknowledge is that in SR/abiding awakening, the Absolute perspective reigns supreme, transcends/trumps the relative, while still including it.
Thus, what we have is an acknowledgement of the relative, as an experience, while knowing the Truth of the matter.
Knowing the Truth means that the experience of doing stuff is no longer conflated with an imagined, existent some-thing/some-one that is independently/separately 'doing.'
Reality is not divided post SR the way you are making it out to be; Where at one moment, there is full immersion in the dream, fully taking yourself to be an individual, fundamentally independent entity/person who has volition, who creates/causes stuff to happen via his choices and actions, and then in another moment, you see from beyond that and all experiential content disappears.
Abiding SR means those two vantage points, for lack of a better term, "merge"...become one in the sense that they abide simultaneously....the personal vantage point is couched within the impersonal...it's not an either/or thing as you seem to be suggesting it is. The merging of the relative and Absolute is 3rd mountain position, where the seeing through of the mountain (all form...all appearance...all perceivables as empty) and the focus upon "no mountain" naturally moves to "there is a mountain, but it's absent it's own inherent existence."
And that's really what the 'dream' reference is all about; denoting the mountain (all appearance...all perceivables) to be absent their own separate/independent existence. They temporal appear, completely dependent/at One with, the ground of awareness within which they arise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 20:45:59 GMT
Yup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 20:55:43 GMT
True nature...Self, includes all that appears and that which lies fundamental to all appearance, yes. But it does not include separation, which is only ever imagined....if/where separation is being erroneously imagined, that is a delusion...and yes, imagination/delusion IS still itself included, but there is never "actual" separation per se.
Seeing through separation means there is no "observer" per se....just "observation/seeing" which is absent an object/something that is doing it. You have yet to realize that ZD. You mistake the fact of observing/seeing/being aware for evidence that there is a some-thing that is doing that! There is no such thing. "Awareness is aware" is a pointer completely and totally beyond all conceptualization....all objects....all things.
The 'observed/perceived' arise/appear within Awareness...but Awareness is not "A" some-thing THAT observes. It's all just happening...any reference at for that pointer?
To invoke an 'observer' that is the counterpart of 'the observed' is to invoke separation! It's not enough to simply say there is an observer AND the observed and they are One. That is a mere conceptualization of Oneness. True realization of Oneness means first seeing through the observer...seeing that a some-thing THAT observes is a delusion created by an overactive imagination.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 21:18:03 GMT
It's crystal clear ZD. You have reified the separate person/seeker, along with the erroneous idea that Truth is hidden and must be sought for, and then you are including that in 'reality.'
That which gets seen to be illusive, is in fact, non-existent and does not even actually appear, but is instead, erroneously inferred...imagined.
The 'seeker/svp' = an illusion.
It's entirely false to suggest that in SR, illusive separation...the separate, volitional person 'reaches Self and finds unity as the prevailing note.'
Oneness is not 'found/reached' by the seeker/SVP...rather, it's revealed as the Truth when the illusion of the SVP is dissolved.
You are dragging the illusion of separation into the light to try to declare it existent and not an illusion.
He most certainly does. His entire issue is that the finite body/mind/person is being denoted as "appearance only/dream-stuff."
He has mistaken the continued engagement with the appearing world as evidence that one is still taking himself to BE a separate, human being. He is under the mistaken idea (similar to Reefs) that seeing through the illusion of Selfhood, necessarily mean no longer engaging appearance as they appear.
And again, yes, 'what you are' includes everything that appears...every thought/idea regardless of how erroneous, however, it does not include 'actual' separation....an actual SVP. Fundamental separation never actually makes an appearance, it's erroneously inferred..it's an illusion..a delusion. It's never true that 'what you are' is an existent entity in it's own right...a separate person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 21:20:08 GMT
Yes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 21:32:48 GMT
"Individualized" consciousness is a facet of the story....appearance only. There is the direct experience/knowing of "my" personal viewpoint and then the indirect experience of 'other's personal viewpoints,' and that's where the idea of "individualized" viewpoints hinges from.
Your sense of arising thoughts "landing" with the Tenka character vs. the other characters who appear is relative, experiential content only. There is a higher/prior to/beyond seeing that trumps/transcends that. And if we're talking Truth, that is the vantage point being spoken from.
Unique points of perception are experiential only....part of the dream-scape. Truth deals with that which lies fundamental to that...beyond...prior to...realization of the Truth re-frames the realm of perceivables as empty and devoid of inherent existence and that very much includes seemingly "individualized" points of perception.
This is really what the pointer "there are no others" is pointing to...and this is why the question of being able to ascertain for Absolute certain if others are perceivers, is ultimately a misconceived question that then of course, has no answer.
What you've done Tenka is take the pointer 'there is only what you are,' and you've used it to reify the appearing person as having actual, inherent existence in it's own right...you've used it to reify the illusion of separation..the separate, volitional person of which there is none.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 21:42:31 GMT
That's what matters?  Isn't that the state of affairs for pretty much anyone who believes he is a separate, volitional entity/person? That's the delusion that gets seen through in SR!...the idea that you are an 'individualized consciousness,' in a sea of OTHER individualized consciousness-es. While that experience of unique vantage points continue on post SR, it's now couched within a greater seeing that ultimately, actually, Absolutely, there is really only One, singular Awareness within which all appearance, even the appearance of 'others' arises. That's what the pointer 'there are no others' is pointing to....that while individualized consciousness is indeed a facet of the story, ultimately, that remains appearance only....the Truth is that fundamental Awareness is what gives rise to the appearance of individualized consciousness. What you keep arguing for Tenka is status quo delusion...the illusion of an existent separate, volitional entity. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 5, 2023 21:51:54 GMT
Present moment relative experience does not erase present moment fundamental Truth. The Truth is always the Truth, regardless of what may be currently arising in experience.
The Truth does not come and go in abiding SR. You clearly have no reference for that, so it makes sense you would think those who speak about an abiding absence of identification with the body/mind/person to be talking shit. I assure you though, the shift in locus of seeing that is SR, completely re-frames the experience of 'personal me/body/mind.'
Even the non-SR likely have a reference for at times self-referential thinking, temporarily taking a hike while engaged in an activity like washing the dishes...and that's what an SVP really is...a conglomerate of self-referential thought/ideation/feeling. When that goes, dishes still get done, but absent identifiction with (fundamental) doership.
I think a really big issue Tenka is that you have no reference for what's actually being pointed to/said, thus, you are creating straw-men arguments everywhere.
I don't see anyone on either forum even speaking of 'no self.' Where did you get that one? What folks talk about is an absence of a separate, volitional person....absence of separation, period. But you have mistaken that to mean a complete absence of any sense of personal self. No one has said that that becomes absent.
|
|
