Reef's Changing Ontology

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 7:43:43 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 7:43:43 GMT

Satchi: How do you know what my perspective is? Show me where Ramana says he knows there are other perceivers. In fact Ramana says there are no others.

Precisely.

Interestingly enough, one of Reefs original arguments was that from the vantage point of the impersonal, it is clear that there are no others...but then he also insists that by virtue of the same vantage point, it is seen that appearing people, rocks, socks, piles of dog poop are also having unique, discrete experience....each appearing person/thing, a unique perceiver/experiencer.

Try adding that one up.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 7:49:33 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 7:49:33 GMT

That can only happen if he mistakes mind for consciousness. It's the same mistake all solipsists who think they are non-dualists make. They cannot tell mind from consciousness. And if that's the case, that puts Satch's claim to NS into question.

Whoah, wait a minute! Isn't your absolute knowing that appearing people, things, rocks, socks, etc, as conscious, experiencing, perceiving, essentially hinged upon your seeing that "it's ALL consciousness"? And now, you want to single out "mind" from that?

Reefs: From the impersonal perspective you clearly know who you are and therefore you also clearly know who all those others are.

Use your logic and answer the question!

Okay, logic 101 for dummies: If everything there is is made of cheese, then what are you made of and what are all those others made of? Tell me!

If A is all there is and A = a then all there is is also a. Now replace A with 'consciousness' and a with 'conscious' - that's the logic 101 lesson we are talking about. I think Gopal understands that but he's too high on ESA to admit it.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 7:59:04 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 7:59:04 GMT

Reefs: It cannot be defined. It can't even be described. It can only be pointed to, but not pointed at. It has to be seen directly, known non-conceptually. That's the only correct answer. Because from the perspective Satch is asking, which is the perspective of the intellect, there is no answer. That has to be understood. And concepts like 'Self' and 'God' or 'Consciousness', from a the perspective of the intellect, are devoid of meaning, because they don't refer to anything the intellect could grasp or could have a reference for nor could it be imagined.

I call complete and utter bullshit!!

Not only have you described it, you've insisted on very specific, well known, well-defined words/terms; Aliveness, conscious, experiencing, perceiving. You know those attributes/qualities/properties to apply to an appearing person/thing, for absolute certain, because of your supposed seeing/knowing of "true nature" during a CC/kensho.

To say that something is known for absolute certain to be "alive, perceiving, experiencing, conscious," is TO "define" it.

Last Edit: Jul 18, 2022 7:59:41 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 8:04:29 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 8:04:29 GMT

Gopal: You are the one who reads books a lot. And posting lot of quotes here. He doesn't. Everybody knows that.

Yes, and the preponderance of those quotes are from New Age/LOA books/writings...he seems to be far more interested in those these days that Nonduality.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 8:08:12 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 8:08:12 GMT

Reefs: That's why Ramakrishna studied all traditions. He wanted to know everything about all the different ways and aspects of the pathless path. His most natural inclination was towards bhakti though. But the people he attracted, came from all walks of life, all kinds of traditions, religions and all levels of understanding/realization.

Satchi:
What? It was okay for Ramakrishna to study all those traditions. You mean like books? 😀

Hehe...yeah, he sorta walked right into that one hey? That's what happens when you're deep into a hissy-fit, trying any which way to try to salvage something...anything....Reefs is in that place of defence where he/she is just lashing out, blindly....wildly.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 8:13:07 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 8:13:07 GMT

Satchi: he's got books coming out of his ears and not just non-duality. What about all that channeling nonsense from Hicks etc

Yes, I think that's what's at the crux of his dug-in-heels, current ontology. He's tried to marry Nonduality with LOA/mysticism/self-help, and wants to call it all Truth....and it just doesn't hold up.

Watching him/her for the past few years has been the epitome of watching someone try with all her might, as though life depends upon it, to fit a square pet in a round hole.

Drop the hammer, Sharon.

Last Edit: Jul 18, 2022 8:13:53 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 8:14:52 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 8:14:52 GMT

Gopal: And if you observe it carefully, he will adjust his truth according to his new books. Actually he follows whatever feels correct for him. Buy that kind of knowledge is dangerous because it keeps changing.

Exactamente! Nailed it.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 8:19:36 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 8:19:36 GMT

Zazeniac: Yeah. Can't see Niz titling his book "I Am That But You Might Not Be."

You know I see their view as something akin to "cogito ergo sum." Slightly different. I perceive therefore. I exist. It also sounds like Hume, skepticism.
I think the "viewpoint" object is a dodge. It's just identification with an abstract object.

Hmmm...he comes pretty close here:

"Who else can have your experience, when the other person is only as real as he appears in your experience?" - Niz

Who specifically do you see identifying with "viewpoint" and making it an abstract object?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 8:24:43 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 8:24:43 GMT

Reefs:
You cannot know that. All you can know is that you exist and that appearance appear to you. Beyond that, you cannot know anything. Remember? Which means you cannot know how your reality is created.

What?? So you are now admitting that you cannot know whether or not it's true that Niz's cancer was a result of mis-alignment?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 18, 2022 8:29:40 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 18, 2022 8:29:40 GMT

Reefs:
I am referring to a realization which will reveal that the entire question is misconceived. If you haven't had that realization, that's okay. But don't put limits on what can or cannot be realized.

Holy flip-floppin!

Your assertion has been that via your CC/Kensho, supposed "realization," you DO know for absolute certain that people, socks, rocks, etc, ARE perceiving/experiencing.

You cannot "realize" an answer to a misconceived question. So which is it? The question is misconceived, therefore, answer unknown OR the question has a fixed/absolute True, answer?

My argument against your assertion of knowing has always been that ultimately, the very question of "people perceiving," is misconceived.