Reef's Changing Ontology

I wonder if I am the only one noticing that Sharon/Absicca, Ouroboros and Reefs share the very same view regarding the issue of 'knowing that appearing people are perceivers.'

They all make the same logical fallacy that has a delusion at it's root that says; You have a walk/talk issue if you say the question is misconceived/answer unknown regarding the actuality of perception on the part of the appearing other. They ALL argue that the fact that the appearing other is engaged 'as though he is perceiving,' therefore means that you are taking the appearance of perception to 'be actual/Truth'...which is of course, a complete and utter nonsense.

The entire world is but an appearance arising within/to awareness....they are suggesting that in seeing that, there's be a complete cessation of engagement with the appearing world. Again, a nonsense.

They all say (using somewhat different wording, but also, there are overlaps...slip-ups perhaps?) that so long as you continue to engage appearing others as though they are perceiving, you'd a walk/talk issue.

Anyway, my point in this post is more about the fact that those 3 apparently share the exact same fallacious view...seems odd. But then when you consider how often Sharon/Absicca/wren/Bak changes her handle, perhaps we're not really talking 3 different posters at all...? All I know is something fishy going on in the story/dream where that shifty, slippery 'ol Sharon character is concerned.

I don't get where the inclination to continue to change a handle on a spiritual forum like that would have it's roots....an intent to deceive....? I dunno.

Usually? Which therefore means, "sometimes" the quotes are not just an appeal to authority....sometimes they are used not to "bolster and erroneous argument," but sometimes they are used to "augment" and add to a pointer to Truth...which in that case means there is a deep understanding regarding the quote and it's context...which means, it's therefore not a "misquote/misinterpretation" at all.





Context is everything with Niz....with all Truth-talk actually. The following quotes puts all talk about the way the world is experienced, (experientially known qualities and properties of the appearing world and all it's things) firmly in it's contextual place.



"All perceivables are stains" -- 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? " - Niz


"The world appears to you so overwhelmingly real because you think of it all the time; cease thinking of it and it will dissolve into thin mist." - Niz

"That you hear is a fact. What you hear is not. The fact can be experienced, and in that sense the sound of the word and the mental ripples it causes are experienced. There is no other reality behind it."

"As all waves are in the ocean, so are all things physical and mental in awareness. Hence awareness itself is all-important, not the content of it." - Niz


"Before the world was, consciousness was. In consciousness it comes into being, in consciousness it lasts and into pure consciousness it dissolves. At the root of everything is the feeling "I am". The state of mind "there is a world" is secondary, for to be, I do not need the world, the world needs me."

Could it be any clearer, Reefs? Consciousness is "prior to" all appearance....ALL percievables....which means, ALL property/quality. Consciousness is not a something that "IS conscious/alive," that then infuses itself as a substance into appearing things. Rather, all perceivables are temporal and owe their brief appearance to the abiding ground of consciousness...they are arising within/to consciousness, not 'objects/things' that embody/are imbued with 'the properties of' that abiding ground.

It's a nonsense to even suggest that the abiding ground of consciousness HAS property/quality....and that's why your ridiculous cheese metaphor fell flat from the get-go....it hinged on a delusion/misconception.




It's you who has misconstrued context of Niz's quotes in this case and mistaken the experience of the appearing world/perceivables as Absoluute Truth.

Notice how you've changed your tact on what a "misconceived question" is? Reefs of yesteryear was adamant that misconceived questions were not 'resolved/answered' at all. Now you are saying that a misconceived question is not "resolved intellectually," but it can in fact BE resolved via direct seeing. Which is of course, utterly false...a delusion.

The question is seen through/seen to be misconceived and therefore, to have NO resolve/answer when separation...the SVP....the "perceiving/experiencing" entity/person is seen through...seen to be false.

What you are arguing for is a seeing through of the SVP entity/perceiver/experiencer, but then somehow a direct seeing that yes! actually, in Truth, each appearing person is indeed "an experiencer/perceiver."

Can you see why your assertion is so problematic/false?

The question of 'other perceivers/experiencers' is misconceived because in Truth, there are NO perceivers/experiencers.....even the "you/Reefs character" that you take to be a perceiver/experiencer, is falsely imagined!!!

There is no known answer/resolve to a misconceived question. No matter what kind of mystical, woo-woo, deep experience you have that seemingly says otherwise.

All misconceived questions are absent/devoid of 'knowing' the answer to it. I know mind does not like that....it feels very uncomfy, but like it or not Reefsy, its the Truth.

It's only tricky IF it does not encompass the "entirety" of perceivables. Once the entire gamut of any-thing at all that arises within/to the abiding, unchanging ground is seen as such, it's crystal clear. Ideas are also appearances....so are the most nuanced of senses....thoughts, feelings, etc. Anything at all that 'arises' as an 'expression of' consciousness = appearance only.

This is why it's so important to see the entire appearing world/universe as all under the umbrella of "appearance only." There is no chance then of mistaking some-thing that arises in experience in some kind of woo-woo moment as Truth.




Again, it's odd how you continue to talk about me and my views, speculating away, while I continue to be banned from your forum and while you refuse to take me up on my invite to come here to speak directly to me. We could clear all this up through direct conversation instead.

If you really don't want anything to do with conversing with me, why is it you keep mentioning me?

Again, "ideas" indeed also fall under the umbrella of "appearance only," as does anything at all that is temporal and not abiding. That means objects/things, feelings, senses, ideas, thoughts....all of it.....perceivables...appearance.

This is why way back E and I were trying to pin you down regarding you insistence that all appearing things/objects are known for certain to be perceiving/experiencing....we wondered if something nebulous like a cloud was also included in that...then I went further to try to ascertain if other facets of the appearing world like thoughts/ideas/feelings/senses were also known to be perceiving or if your knowing just pertained to discrete/individuated objects/things. Seems it WAS just objects/things, but again, that's problematic when you insist there are NO things...just some kind of unified substrate/substance that exists between the abiding ground and the appearing/perceivable object/thing.