|
|
Post by Gopal on Jul 23, 2022 22:29:09 GMT
You are correct that conflating metaphysical solipsism with non-duality is problematic and based upon confusion. No one here other than you though, is making that conflation. The seeing through of separation = an absence. In that absence there is none of the "my mind" identification that is inherent to all forms of solipsism. In SR, the 'entity that HAS a mind,' is seen through. Now he is fighting for what solipsism is! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 23, 2022 22:31:42 GMT
TMT and misconceived questioning, all rolled into one confused little dubstep.  I wonder what's tough there to understand. Tenka has the understanding issue so he is unable to grasp the idea of what we are talking. But Reefs can understand but I don't know what's stopping him to understand what I write. I suspect at this point that even IF Reefs did understand, he/she'd find some way to continue to argue the opposite...simply because he's so invested now at this point in being right...proving him/herself to be right...winning an argument. I think she started out at the beginning truly expressing the belief that "If it's all consciousness--that must therefore mean that every appearing thing, by virtue of that, is itself, conscious, aware, perceiving, giving rise to experience." As the conversation flowed on, her/his argument morphed considerably....she even changed her definition of "realization" so as to include the almighty CC/Kensho woo-woo program. Reefs is a very immature, reactive and vindictive character. Those types rarely if ever have the integrity required to admit they were w-w-w-w-rrr-r-r-ong... But yes, agreed, Tenka simply has no reference at all for the shift in position of seeing that is required to look "at" the world of perceivables as is necessary to see them all as empty and arising dependent, within/to awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 23, 2022 22:34:58 GMT
You are correct that conflating metaphysical solipsism with non-duality is problematic and based upon confusion. No one here other than you though, is making that conflation. The seeing through of separation = an absence. In that absence there is none of the "my mind" identification that is inherent to all forms of solipsism. In SR, the 'entity that HAS a mind,' is seen through. Now he is fighting for what solipsism is! Yup...he thinks we are butt-hurt/insulted over being called "solipsists," when really, the argument underway is really about the definition of solipsism. By virtue of that definition, the SR cannot be solipsists as that would mean circling back to 1st mountain position where once again, the appearing body/mind character is believed to be a separate, existent, perceiving entity in it's own right...a separate something that is giving rise to awareness vs. the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jul 23, 2022 22:37:59 GMT
I wonder what's tough there to understand. Tenka has the understanding issue so he is unable to grasp the idea of what we are talking. But Reefs can understand but I don't know what's stopping him to understand what I write. I suspect at this point that even IF Reefs did understand, he/she'd find some way to continue to argue the opposite...simply because he's so invested now at this point in being right...proving him/herself to be right...winning an argument. I think she started out at the beginning truly expressing the belief that "If it's all consciousness--that must therefore mean that every appearing thing, by virtue of that, is itself, conscious, aware, perceiving, giving rise to experience." As the conversation flowed on, her/his argument morphed considerably....she even changed her definition of "realization" so as to include the almighty CC/Kensho woo-woo program. Reefs is a very immature, reactive and vindictive character. Those types rarely if ever have the integrity required to admit they were w-w-w-w-rrr-r-r-ong... But yes, agreed, Tenka simply has no reference at all for the shift in position of seeing that is required to look "at" the world of perceivables as is necessary to see them all as empty and arising dependent, within/to awareness. I think over the years Reefs seemed to have understood a but now. But now he comes up with the new idea as to mine is the intellectual construct. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jul 23, 2022 22:39:41 GMT
Now he is fighting for what solipsism is! Yup...he thinks we are butt-hurt/insulted over being called "solipsists," when really, the argument underway is really about the definition of solipsism. By virtue of that definition, the SR cannot be solipsists as that would mean circling back to 1st mountain position where once again, the appearing body/mind character is believed to be a separate, existent, perceiving entity in it's own right...a separate something that is giving rise to awareness vs. the other way around. He actually knows the truth that Satch and someNOTHING are getting hurt when they are being called solipsist so he keeps calling them. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 23, 2022 22:48:23 GMT
The ground of abiding awareness...the unchanging...THAT is actual! It's YOU who has conflated the conceptually appearing world and all it's things and conditions to be "actual." You argued at one point that the very question of appearing people, appearing things/objects as "perceivers/experiencers," was misconceived as ultimately you said, there are NO "others....there are no objects/things." But then somehow, just as you do now, you circled back to somehow know that each, distinct, individuated apparent 'thing' was having it's own discrete/unique experience. What an odd thing...to supposedly see through the actuality of boundaries/limitation/otherness, to then reify such via an absolute knowing that each distinctly appearing object/thing, is a perceiving/experiencing entity. It really is the equivalent of 2nd mountain position....seeing the inherent emptiness of all appearance, packing your bags to start heading off to 3rd mountain, only to get pulled back your boot-straps to 1st mountain, where once again separation is in play....experiencing/doing/seeing/thinking entities are back in play, but mistaking that all for 3rd mountain. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 23, 2022 22:51:33 GMT
Yup...he thinks we are butt-hurt/insulted over being called "solipsists," when really, the argument underway is really about the definition of solipsism. By virtue of that definition, the SR cannot be solipsists as that would mean circling back to 1st mountain position where once again, the appearing body/mind character is believed to be a separate, existent, perceiving entity in it's own right...a separate something that is giving rise to awareness vs. the other way around. He actually knows the truth that Satch and someNOTHING are getting hurt when they are being called solipsist so he keeps calling them. You think they're getting 'hurt' by that? I don't. They simply disagree with the label...and I think SomeNothing is also bringing into question Reef's integrity to some extent for the fact of 'trying to' stir things up. Very odd that he'd do that considering he's the one who has set such stringent forum rules about argument....him who has controlled the dialogues and banned various posters for merely challenging him. I'm always a fan of calling out hypocrisy and lack of integrity where it is, so I applaud anyone who has the knackers to do that where the ST tyrant mods are concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jul 23, 2022 23:05:34 GMT
He actually knows the truth that Satch and someNOTHING are getting hurt when they are being called solipsist so he keeps calling them. You think they're getting 'hurt' by that? I don't. They simply disagree with the label...and I think SomeNothing is also bringing into question Reef's integrity to some extent for the fact of 'trying to' stir things up. Very odd that he'd do that considering he's the one who has set such stringent forum rules about argument....him who has controlled the dialogues and banned various posters for merely challenging him. I'm always a fan of calling out hypocrisy and lack of integrity where it is, so I applaud anyone who has the knackers to do that where the ST tyrant mods are concerned. I feel like satch ia getting irritated. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 23, 2022 23:15:05 GMT
This so perfectly lays bare precisely where you go wrong..where your delusion lies. The 'actual' (______________) is not a perceivable. It's not a something that temporally arises. All perceivables come and go...are temporal...ephemeral. That which lies "actual" to all arising, temporal perceivables, is the ground.....it stays the ground....never, per se, arising itself....never becoming temporal. The moment there is some-thing perceived as 'there,' there's been an expression within/to the actual...but the expressed is not "the" actual itself, per se. It's temporal appearance is dependent upon that which IS actual...IS abiding. Again, you used to at least conceptually have quite a good grasp on this; spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/223012 |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 23, 2022 23:16:57 GMT
You think they're getting 'hurt' by that? I don't. They simply disagree with the label...and I think SomeNothing is also bringing into question Reef's integrity to some extent for the fact of 'trying to' stir things up. Very odd that he'd do that considering he's the one who has set such stringent forum rules about argument....him who has controlled the dialogues and banned various posters for merely challenging him. I'm always a fan of calling out hypocrisy and lack of integrity where it is, so I applaud anyone who has the knackers to do that where the ST tyrant mods are concerned. I feel like satch ia getting irritated. Perhaps.....Reefs can be irritating at times, no doubt. I see an important difference between finding a forum poster irritating vs. being 'hurt' by them....feeling hurt/deeply upset, that kind of thing. |
|
