Reef's Changing Ontology

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 6:32:50 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 6:32:50 GMT

Reefs: Yes, he does say that. But quite obviously, he doesn't understand what that actually means or else he wouldn't have to infer the true nature of the cat.

So what is this "true nature of the cat" that you are referencing that equals absolute/certain knowledge that the cat is indeed, experiencing, perceiving, alive, as it appears to be?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 6:35:14 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 6:35:14 GMT

Reefs: That's a good reply, actually. No more zen stick treatment for you.

Hmmm...okay, so we're getting warmer. One just needs to hike a mountain to know it's true nature. Isn't the seeing/realizing of 'fundamental--nature' always prior to/beyond experience?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 6:48:59 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 6:48:59 GMT

Reefs:
No, not a description. Yes, not a concept. But that does only mean that the true nature of the cat cannot be know conceptually (mind). It doesn't mean that it cannot be known non-conceptually (prior to mind). That's your first mistake.

The problem is, you are mistaking "conceptual knowledge" for "nonconceptual knowing/realization." The two are very different.

Any knowledge that reifies the appearance of cat as 'existent/actual/an entity that gives rise to awareness,' is 'in the dream/conceptual' knowledge.

When you know your true nature (awareness or whatever you wanna call it), you also automagically know the true nature of all that is, which includes the cat. Or else you are arguing from a position of separation and are just speculating. That's your second mistake.

Distinction between that which abides and that which temporally appears, does NOT = separation. You are mistaking the pointer of "awareness as ground," for a something that "infuses/makes-up" the appearing form of cat.

You are obviously still conceptualizing 'the unbounded, fundamental ground.'

True nature is not a quality/property as you imagine it to be.

You Reefs would do well so simply drop that concept of "true nature" all together. You can't help but turn it into something conceptual as you have not yet seen all appearance as inherent empty of it's own existence.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 6:51:24 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 6:51:24 GMT

Satchi: my God it's just flashed into my mind what your confusion is! You actually think that SR confers upon you the secrets of the cosmos, insights about how the universe works, the ability to answer existential questions, superpowers that let you see into the soul of a pussycat, That's why you're so fascinated by what you call CC's. What SR does is actually the opposite. It reveals to you that you know absolutely nothing! That you just are and you are satisfied and that you have peace of mind being what you are. Do you seriously think that when I eat an ice cream I'm thinking to myself this is an abstract ice cream that is appearing in my mind? 😆 I'm compelled to treat the world as real. I engage in the world and with other people as if they're real. I don't think about it I just do it. It would be easy to say that I engage in the world because it is nothing other than my own Self so that I am just engaging with myself but that just sounds like a concept. Tell me why you really grab that ice cream.

Nailed it.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 7:03:46 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 7:03:46 GMT

Reefs: The person exists. It's just not real.

You are deeply confused...all over the map on this one;

Reefs: But there are people. They are just not real, appearance only.

Reefs:
An appearance can't stand by itself. It doesn't exist in its own right. It's like the moon, it only shines with borrowed light but not by itself.

spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/186721

You say the person is "appearance only." Then you say an appearance "can't stand by itself...does NOT exist (in it's own right), but now you are asserting that persons DO exist.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 7:10:21 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 7:10:21 GMT

Reefs: Yes, you are not the doer. In conventional terms, you say 'you' fed the cat. But in actuality, feeding just happened.

And yet you insist that there is a realization (a transcendent seeing of the actual) that has you knowing for absolute certain that there is an experiencer/perceiver in that appearing person that you see to be feeding a cat....that also means there's a doer/person WHO fed the cat.

You can't have it both ways.

It really is okay you know just to come out and admit you were/are wrong about the realization that reveals appearing people to be actually perceiving/experiencing.

You're doing that "backed into a corner and fighting for your life," thing right now, just to try to maintain your original position, and sorry to say ma'am but it 'aint working. Admitting you were wrong isn't actually as hard as you are imagining it to be.

Last Edit: Jul 18, 2022 7:10:35 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 7:12:23 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 7:12:23 GMT

Reefs: It is unspeakable. Realize your own true nature, and you will see and know.

So...the cat's true nature is unspeakable, but it is specifically that knowing of that true nature that lies behind your absolute, certain knowing that a cat is alive, conscious, experiencing, perceiving...?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 7:23:01 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 7:23:01 GMT

Reefs:
How would you know? You can't even know if I am an actual perceiver, right?

If the appearing person is realized in SR to not be an 'actual doer,' then how the hell is it that the knowing of an actual perceiver survives SR?

You profess to be SR, but still maintain there IS an actual perceiver.

SR reveals that despite perception...despite the arsing of experience, there is no 'actual' perceiver/experiencer.

Again, you used to argue for this point yourself....and you were pretty damned nasty and demeaning to all sorts of other posters, as you did so, as I recall.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 7:33:27 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 7:33:27 GMT

Reefs: I'm not fascinated with CC as an experience. You will rarely see me talk about it. I only care about the realization that comes with it. And that is not an experience. In fact, in the past, I would classify the experience part as woo-woo. When I was on another forum, they used to talk about CC's all the time, but what they were referring to was levels and layers of consciousness. And that's not what we here call CC. But it's typically what they call CC in new age circles. That's why I prefer the term kensho, because that just means (literally) seeing into your nature, and that's what it basically is and what counts. The problem though with talking about it, trying to explain it to others who don't have an actual reference for it, they will focus exclusively on the experience part and ignore the realization part. And then they will either go for the woo-woo part or dismiss it as mere woo-woo. And that's where these discussions regularly go wrong. Never mind the fireworks, focus on the realization! The firework come and go, the realization remains.

But, in classifying "kensho/CC experience" as a "realization," you have now completely changed your definition of realization!

Reefs: Realizations thru-out the centuries are exactly the same since eons. Descriptions don't really vary. What varies are the circumstances under which realizations happen and the size and amount of luggage that gets sucked into the abyss as a result.

spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/138283

Reefs: Since realization is pointing to a loss, an absence, it can't be described. I dunno why you have trouble comprehending that. So the only approach reasonable here seems to be to say what it is not instead what it is. Which basically means throwing a monkey wrench into the analogy/minding machine.

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2823/strange-woo#ixzz5k53TmF1Z

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 7:39:36 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 7:39:36 GMT

Reefs: That's what I said, appearance is used as a synonym for form. But it is also (unknowingly or unconsciously) used by some as a synonym for ideas. Reading comprehension much?

Actually, in Nonduality/Truth-talk, it's used as a synonym for the entirely of anything at all that is perceived...ALL perceivables...ALL experiential content. If it 'arises' it's an appearance. The entire experiential world/universe and all its' facets...ideas, thoughts, feelings, senses, things, circumstance, all of it = appearance only.