Post by Figgles on Jul 23, 2022 16:38:10 GMT
Muttley: Well .. ok .. fwiw and for what I can tell .. here goes .. in "reefs' definition of solipsism" there's a core perspective that comes with what I would term a "denial of objectivity", and is also often associated with the dream/dreamer metaphor. E', for example, was always clear that WIBIGO was not objectivity, and if you explored it with him in depth, he would write sometimes about "radical subjectivity". See the link to solipsism?
Where Reefs goes wrong in labelling what is actually none other than SR/Nonduality as "solipsism," is that all forms of solipsism are absent the seeing through of the separate, volitional entity that takes itself to BE "a perceiver/experiencer."
Reef's ontology reifies the appearing person as "a perceiver/experiencer/doer." Whereas SR = the absence of an entity that actually perceives/experiences/does stuff.
The appearing person 'form' is as much a perceivable/stain, as is all the senses, thought patterns, ideas, feelings, beliefs that arise relative to that appearing form.
Reefs doesn't rezz with questioning all beliefs or not-knowing as an approach.
Not now, no, but he did at one point:
Reefs-of-yesteryear: Okay. The universe is just an appearance. It cannot stand for itself. It borrows its existence from something else that can stand for itself. And that 'something' has many names. Some even call it 'nothing'.
And seeing that clearly, that's probably what you might call 'non-dual' experience.
Read more:
spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/180297
When appearances are seen for what they are, separate volitional persons are seen for what they are as well - in one swell foop. It doesn't involve thinking at all. What involves thinking and a great deal of imagination, however, is seeing a human body lying on a sofa and turning that into a person that is sleeping and dreaming.
And seeing that clearly, that's probably what you might call 'non-dual' experience.
Read more:
spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/180297
When appearances are seen for what they are, separate volitional persons are seen for what they are as well - in one swell foop. It doesn't involve thinking at all. What involves thinking and a great deal of imagination, however, is seeing a human body lying on a sofa and turning that into a person that is sleeping and dreaming.
Muttley:
On a related note, reefs' position on physicality is an interesting one because, like E', seems to me that he sees the notion of physicality - and by extension, objectivity as well - as secondary and based on misconception. Figs is also partially correct in that he used to use the term "appearances" (by my recollection to make that point about "physicality"), so his vocabulary changed, but I disagree that this is a "change in ontology".
On a related note, reefs' position on physicality is an interesting one because, like E', seems to me that he sees the notion of physicality - and by extension, objectivity as well - as secondary and based on misconception. Figs is also partially correct in that he used to use the term "appearances" (by my recollection to make that point about "physicality"), so his vocabulary changed, but I disagree that this is a "change in ontology".
Reefs-of-yesteryear: 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
Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2823/strange-woo#ixzz5k53TmF1Z
the above there = a rather significant "change in ontology." He was back then quite adamant that realization always = a loss/an absence/seeing through, whereas now, he's including the addition of 'knowing/knowledge' gleaned via a Kensho/CC experience in what he deems to be "realization."
Muttley: A major rift opened when reefs started expressing interest in the idea of kensho, which you see carried forward to the present with the "that's just an experience" one-upper, which is also related to the tangential disagreement about the animate/inanimate dichotomy.
What's interesting is that he never once brought up the supposed Kensho/CC aspect of his SR, until the assertion of 'not knowing' arose in conversation. Up to that point, Reefs was hammering anyone who dared to suggest that a woo-woo experience even might equal SR. Back then, he was also adamant; Realization is singular....it's one singular, fell swoop seeing through and now 'multiple' insights/gleanings.
Reefs-of-yesteryear: Did I hear 'series of realizations' again... ?
'I am not my thoughts' is a conclusion which could be the result of self-realization or not. Similar to U.G.'s 'realization' after his 'calamity' that J.K. is just an a$$clown. There are all kinds of folks that claim having had series of realizations and if you look closer you see that actually they just went into serial production with spiritual concepts.
We could describe what a realization NOT is endlessly and in endless variations until all eternity without ever having to repeat ourselves. But when we try to explain what a realization actually IS, then _____________ ...
Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2823/strange-woo#ixzz5k54FNr89
Yes, that Segal account sounds very fishy to me, too. It actually only shows how much she was hung up with appearances and nobody could point that out to her. Could be the result of the TM woowoo.
'I am not my thoughts' is a conclusion which could be the result of self-realization or not. Similar to U.G.'s 'realization' after his 'calamity' that J.K. is just an a$$clown. There are all kinds of folks that claim having had series of realizations and if you look closer you see that actually they just went into serial production with spiritual concepts.
We could describe what a realization NOT is endlessly and in endless variations until all eternity without ever having to repeat ourselves. But when we try to explain what a realization actually IS, then _____________ ...
Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2823/strange-woo#ixzz5k54FNr89
Yes, that Segal account sounds very fishy to me, too. It actually only shows how much she was hung up with appearances and nobody could point that out to her. Could be the result of the TM woowoo.
Muttley: I'd hazard that another facet of reefs' solipsism is the context mix of the personal creator doing creation, and this is where it gets really interesting, because reefs is an LOA guy. And, similar to how if you explore "radical subjectivity", Consciousness and non-volition with E', if you explore LOA with reefs, with an open, non-competitive mind, you'll get a very interesting and illuminating perspective on LOA that differentiates it from the personal creator doing creation. It's been quite fascinating at times to watch both figs and reefs trying to talk the exact same sense to gopal on this issue of the personal creator over these past few years. 
That is not so at all. Like all LOA'ers, Reefs still posits the entity/person as the one who controls/directs thought/feelings, thereby making himself a match to his personal desires. He ultimately credits the impersonal with overall/general creation itself, but he very clearly posits the person as central to the 'vibration,' that can be in or out of alignment with Source and that can thereby either pinch himself off from all the nice stuff he personally desires or align with it, thereby getting all his desired stuff.
Absent a separate, volitional entity that has personal desires and can "actually" choose direction of thought... LOA collapses.
Muttley:
gopal's logic is inescapable in that all he can know for sure is that he is. reefs counter logic that this implies existential separation is just as inescapable, which creates a cognitive dissonance for gopal because it contradicts what gopal has realized about the nature of "inner", and "outer". As satch pointed out, "all I can know for certain is that 'I AM'" is a seekers perspective (I think, as I recall, that he said it first in this latest round of follies, not me ), and I agree with reefs that gopal sometimes thinks and writes from a personal perspective when gopal believes that he is thinking and writing otherwise.
gopal's logic is inescapable in that all he can know for sure is that he is. reefs counter logic that this implies existential separation is just as inescapable, which creates a cognitive dissonance for gopal because it contradicts what gopal has realized about the nature of "inner", and "outer". As satch pointed out, "all I can know for certain is that 'I AM'" is a seekers perspective (I think, as I recall, that he said it first in this latest round of follies, not me ), and I agree with reefs that gopal sometimes thinks and writes from a personal perspective when gopal believes that he is thinking and writing otherwise.
I am still not entirely clear on Gopal's position, but must say that recently, I am trying to take each post of his at face value as I do think in the past, as SN has pointed out, there have possibly been some subtle language issues involved, despite the fact that overall, Gopal's English/writing ability is very good. I get the sense (may be wrong) that Gopal is not at this point anyway, 'personalizing/conceptualizing' "__________________." But time will tell.
