Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Jul 11, 2022 5:35:23 GMT
For several years now, this term has been bandied about on ST and Gab in a way that has nothing at all to do with Nonduality/Truth. I think Reefs was the first the hi-jack the term, which is indeed used by some as a Nonduality pointer. He erroneously conflated the term "knowing True nature," with "knowing objects/things are perceiving/having discrete, individual experiences of their own." In terms of SR/awakening, the knowing of the True nature of objects/thing is nothing other than knowing/seeing that all distinction is apparent only and fundamentally, all objects/things are empty of inherent existence....they appear/arise completely dependent upon the abiding ground...not separate from that. As such, we use the pointer "It's all awareness," to speak about both the ground and the appearing world arising within/to that...of course, including discrete/distinct, apparently individuated things, people and animals. BUT...big But!....knowing the appearing person and his apparent perception, the appearing shoe, the appearing dog, etc, etc, is essentially an expression OF awareness, thus, none-other than awareness, does NOT mean that the True nature of an appearance is therefore itself, per se, aware...or "perceiving/experiencing." That is a ridiculous leap of mind that first of all takes the pointer of "awareness" as the fundamental reality and turns it into a conceptual something and then it get even worse as that conceptual something/substance is imagined to infuse itself INTO each appearing thing/object, thereby infusing that object with the property/quality of perceiving/experiencing. The term True Nature is just another pointer to the fundamental Truth of Oneness/non-separation...to the inherent emptiness/absence of inherent existence of all objects/thing...of all perceivables....even the appearance of sentience/perception/individualized experiencing, itself. Bodies/people THAT are giving rise to perception/experience are illusions. It's not actually True/Truth that an appearing body is giving rise to/catalyzing perception or that an appearing person = "an experiencer/perceiver." That what gets seen through in SR/awakening. The True nature of anything that appears is indeed "awareness," but "awareness" there is but a pointer and not a something/substance that has the quality/property of perceiving/experiencing. BUT...big But!....knowing the appearing person and his apparent perception, the appearing shoe, the appearing dog, etc, etc, is essentially an expression OF awareness, thus, none-other than awareness, does NOT mean that the True nature of an appearance is therefore itself, per se, aware...or "perceiving/experiencing." Do you mean, nothing is aware other than awareness itself?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 5:35:57 GMT
BS. All the shared stories of Kensho/CC, mystical experience are very much shared from a present 'remembering' of a past event.
Just because a particular woo-woo/mystical experience was 'transformative' for the person, does not equal the shift in seeing that = SR and does not mean 'imminent/direct/present' gnosis/seeing.
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Jul 11, 2022 5:38:46 GMT
As I think you are indicating there....that is of course, a misconceived question. "Consciousness" is a reference to that which lies fundamental....it does not HAVE deeper nature...it IS fundamental nature itself. This is where the "I do know appearing people are perceivers," go wrong. They are mistaking the term used to indicate fundamental, abiding ground with a "something that HAS a deeper nature" that then "infuses" all it's arising/appearing, temporal expressions with that nature/property/quality. YES. Awareness/consciousness IS.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 5:40:55 GMT
For several years now, this term has been bandied about on ST and Gab in a way that has nothing at all to do with Nonduality/Truth. I think Reefs was the first the hi-jack the term, which is indeed used by some as a Nonduality pointer. He erroneously conflated the term "knowing True nature," with "knowing objects/things are perceiving/having discrete, individual experiences of their own." In terms of SR/awakening, the knowing of the True nature of objects/thing is nothing other than knowing/seeing that all distinction is apparent only and fundamentally, all objects/things are empty of inherent existence....they appear/arise completely dependent upon the abiding ground...not separate from that. As such, we use the pointer "It's all awareness," to speak about both the ground and the appearing world arising within/to that...of course, including discrete/distinct, apparently individuated things, people and animals. BUT...big But!....knowing the appearing person and his apparent perception, the appearing shoe, the appearing dog, etc, etc, is essentially an expression OF awareness, thus, none-other than awareness, does NOT mean that the True nature of an appearance is therefore itself, per se, aware...or "perceiving/experiencing." That is a ridiculous leap of mind that first of all takes the pointer of "awareness" as the fundamental reality and turns it into a conceptual something and then it get even worse as that conceptual something/substance is imagined to infuse itself INTO each appearing thing/object, thereby infusing that object with the property/quality of perceiving/experiencing. The term True Nature is just another pointer to the fundamental Truth of Oneness/non-separation...to the inherent emptiness/absence of inherent existence of all objects/thing...of all perceivables....even the appearance of sentience/perception/individualized experiencing, itself. Bodies/people THAT are giving rise to perception/experience are illusions. It's not actually True/Truth that an appearing body is giving rise to/catalyzing perception or that an appearing person = "an experiencer/perceiver." That what gets seen through in SR/awakening. The True nature of anything that appears is indeed "awareness," but "awareness" there is but a pointer and not a something/substance that has the quality/property of perceiving/experiencing. BUT...big But!....knowing the appearing person and his apparent perception, the appearing shoe, the appearing dog, etc, etc, is essentially an expression OF awareness, thus, none-other than awareness, does NOT mean that the True nature of an appearance is therefore itself, per se, aware...or "perceiving/experiencing." I don't have a problem with saying that so long as it's clear that awareness is not a conceptual something that is then, itself, aware. Again, these convos get so hard because ultimately, that which is fundamentally/abiding/unbounded, defies all conceptual capture.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 5:50:57 GMT
Ah..see, this is the tell here; You have not seen through the totality of "perceivables," and are mistaking certain facets of experience that lie outside of the so called "norm," for "beyond mind."
Instinct....gut feeling.....intuition, may indeed 'seem to be' beyond mind, but in terms of getting down to the Truth of the matter....seeing all perceivables as empty appearance only/arising non-separate from, dependent upon the abiding ground, is imperative....clarity means that no stone goes unturned...that every single perceivable/appearance, regardless of how subtle or nuanced it may be, or how seemingly "transcendent" of normal experience it seems to be, is illuminated as what it is....an expression of the unbounded, unwavering, unchanging ground.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 5:53:51 GMT
What you are saying there then is: Mind derived knowledge trumps realization/seeing through/absence of mind-based knowledge/baggage. You are dead wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 6:03:21 GMT
Yes, agreed. The shift in seeing that is SR reveals that appearing person/character/body-mind, never was the domain of perception/experience/doing/seeing/thinking, etc. Personal perception is every bit an "appearance only" as the body is.
The me character that apparently personally perceives, thinks, sees, does stuff, is no different than the 'you character,' that apparently does all that. All facets of the relative story. All empty appearance...no inherent existence.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 6:09:43 GMT
Nothing in the unfolding story can you tell you the ultimate Truth. All 'processes" are "in the story."
The "nature" of individuated expression? That's an idea that is smack-dab in the center of mind. You are imagining a depth to an apparent distinction that is simply absent.
All "expression" is temporal, ephemeral, empty appearance only, arising dependent upon the abiding, unbounded ground.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 6:18:40 GMT
Sure....that's called a direct experience. The sense/experienced knowing/seeing that all that appears is alive, intelligent, vibrant = the informed mind. It's NOT the realization/seeing through.
I would say it's quite common to hear sages speak of their experience of the world as "vibrant/intelligent/alive," but if they're actually SR, they're also gonna tell you that that sense/seeing/experience is itself part and parcel of the dream-scape....itself a perception/perceivable.....an appearance within the overriding dream/story.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 6:22:31 GMT
Yes. And that is something different than "knowing for absolute certain that appearing people, piles of cat poo and shoes are perceivers/experiencers. Somehow the 'way' the world is experienced following SR has been conflated with absolute knowing that perception/arising experience is the domain of the appearing person....of all discrete, individualized appearing things/objects. It's a complete and utter nonsense.
|
|