|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 6:32:57 GMT
Precisely. Once the entire gamut of perceivables/appearance has been seen through and is no longer mistaken for having separate, inherent existence, all questions about 'inherent nature/Truth about' appearances ceases. The entire world is now clearly seen to be appearing within/to "singular/undivided" awareness...the only "awareness" that is/can be known....impersonal/unbounded/unwavering....whatever is appearing, that abiding ground is always there....fundamental.
If something is appearing in the dream/story, it's appearing.
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Jul 11, 2022 6:43:22 GMT
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. Yes, was just trying to understand what you were ultimately saying. I have noticed mind trying to make it into another 'being'...hehe..sometimes got to just laugh at the antics.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 6:44:40 GMT
If there was some kind of known conceptualized/experienced "isness" to the tree in that first time seeing, then really, it wasn't all that profoundly different than the previous seeing where you were invoking an symbolic/idea overlay upon the direct seeing.
So long as you are seeing "some-THING" experiential, mind is still in play. True realization lies beyond/prior to mind. A tree IS an expression/appearance arising within/to the unbounded. If we're talking Truth/seeing prior to/beyond mind, there is nothing more to know/add to that.
The seeing of the tree as some kind of conglomerate of vibrating energy is mysticism, not Nonduality/Truth.
That's not realization/seeing through, that is a mind-based, experiential seeing.
SR will clear that misconception up for you. THIS only 'seems to be' manifesting 'through each human.' In actuality, each human is itself a manifestation/appearance and not actually giving rise to/a source of manifestation.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 7:01:03 GMT
The seeing that apparent, distinct appearances have no inherent existence in their own right, does not equal philosophical "solipsism."
You didn't have any issue with the assertion that all appearances were empty and devoid of their own inherent existence, until it was mentioned that perception/sentience on the part of the appearing other, was also an empty appearance only.
You've admitted yourself that from the personal perspective, you are a solipsist. You say it can't be known. You've also at various junctures agreed that from the impersonal perspective, the question is misconceived....because SR reveals that ultimately, there are no others...no entity that is perceiving....no one who is experiencing....doing, seeing, etc.
But now, you are back to insisting that you DO know that others are perceiving/experiencing due to a CC/Kensho/mystical experience that even now has you seeing the inherent "aliveness/vibrancy/perceiving/experiencing nature" of all apparent things.
None of us would still be talking about the absence of absolute/certain knowing relative to appearing people if you hadn't jumped in to declare that you did know that appearing others are in fact, perceivers/experiencers. (Also...paperclips....piles of dog poo, shoes, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 7:07:08 GMT
There need not be identification with the label nor 'fighting it,' to simply rebut the nonsensical, deluded points made.
& If you're still interested in the views of people on your list, why not engage them directly in conversation? Interesting that you'd ban folks and then keep bringing them and their views up in discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 7:11:58 GMT
Well put. It's crazy....most folks are absolute fine with talk about "not knowing," regarding appearance...that is, up and until it gets mentioned that "people" and their apparent sentience/perceiving, also fall under that umbrella. They cannot fathom that their knowledge of others as sentient perceivers is not absolute Truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 7:22:47 GMT
Well put. It's crazy....most folks are absolute fine with talk about "not knowing," regarding appearance...that is, up and until it gets mentioned that "people" and their apparent sentience/perceiving, also fall under that umbrella. They cannot fathom that their knowledge of others as sentient perceivers is not absolute Truth. it seems that our views are converging somewhat which feels kind of strange.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 7:25:19 GMT
Niz: "Is there a world outside your knowledge? Can you go beyond what you know? You may postulate a world beyond the mind, but it will remain a concept, unproved and unprovable. Your experience is your proof, and it is valid for you only. Who else can have your experience, when the other person is only as real as he appears in your experience?"
How would you decipher the difference between one who interacted as though there were 'actual' perceivers, vs. interacting as though there were simply "apparent perceivers"?
Nothing in the dream is actual...nothing has inherent existence in it's own right.and yet still...the story content/appearance, continues to compel interaction. Amazing hey?
Your biggest problem is that you are singling out the appearance of perceiving people from all other appearance. You used to be fine with the idea of the world as an empty appearance. Even people! What happened?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 7:27:06 GMT
Well put. It's crazy....most folks are absolute fine with talk about "not knowing," regarding appearance...that is, up and until it gets mentioned that "people" and their apparent sentience/perceiving, also fall under that umbrella. They cannot fathom that their knowledge of others as sentient perceivers is not absolute Truth. it seems that our views are converging somewhat which feels kind of strange. A fig-newton eating yeti....?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 11, 2022 7:33:38 GMT
There is a difference between definite knowing that an appearance is appearing vs. absolute/certain knowing that the appearance is Truth.
You are mistaking engagement with an appearance, as it appears, with absolute/certain knowing that goes beyond the knowing of the appearance.
Just because an appearance is engaged with does not equal mistaking that appearance for being something more than appearance. The mirage continues to appear even after seeing there's no actual water there.
|
|