Reef's Changing Ontology

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 4:54:55 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 4:54:55 GMT

Reefs: Just having some fun with you. Nothing serious going on here.

Ha! yeah, right!

I am actually interested in the details of your model of reality. How far does the stamping go? How specific is it? Where is your freedom in that model? Are there any unknowns? If by stamping you mean predetermination, then there isn't any freedom, is there? If by stamping you just mean a general tragectory, I may actually agree with you there.

And I am interested in the details of Reef's model of reality. How far does the "aliveness/perceiving/experiencing" go? How specific is it? Where is the freedom on that model? Are there any unknowns? If by "known to be perceiving/experiencing" you mean "existent in it's own right," there there isn't any freedom/Oneness, is there?..as that would defy Oneness...

Last Edit: Jul 16, 2022 4:56:37 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 5:39:37 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 5:39:37 GMT

Reefs: The Self is all there is. Your true nature is the Self. The individual is also the Self. But the individual is not your true nature.

But your assertion has been that by virtue of Self being all there is and thus, what is meant by 'true nature', the apparent individual then, also being Self, that you therefore know the apparent individual/appearing person, to BE that "all there is--Self."

You just argued against your previous argument. The appearing person is NOT = YOUR true nature. BOOM!!!!!!!!

Your true nature is the Self which is without attributes. Your true nature is not the individual, which is just a collection of attributes. Do you see the difference?

Do YOU? Otherwise, why would you argue that the appearing person/body/mind of "others" is an actual perceiver/experiencer?

Or take what Ramana said: Both the ajnani and the jnani say "I am the body". The jnani does not say "The body is my true nature". Not even the ajnani would say that. The jnani would say "The Self is my true nature". And that Self does include the body. But the body is conditional, the Self is unconditional. If you say that the body or the individual is your true nature, then you essentially are saying that your true nature is conditional, which it is not.

Right. So how the heck then do you come out knowing for absolute certain that appearing individual persons, individuated shoes, piles of dog poo, paper-clips, are each, individually, experiencing/perceiving?

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 5:50:02 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2022 5:50:02 GMT

Jul 16, 2022 5:39:37 GMT Figgles said:

Reefs: The Self is all there is. Your true nature is the Self. The individual is also the Self. But the individual is not your true nature.

But your assertion has been that by virtue of Self being all there is and thus, what is meant by 'true nature', the apparent individual then, also being Self, that you therefore know the apparent individual/appearing person, to BE that "all there is--Self."

You just argued against your previous argument. The appearing person is NOT = YOUR true nature. BOOM!!!!!!!!

Your true nature is the Self which is without attributes. Your true nature is not the individual, which is just a collection of attributes. Do you see the difference?

Do YOU? Otherwise, why would you argue that the appearing person/body/mind of "others" is an actual perceiver/experiencer?

Or take what Ramana said: Both the ajnani and the jnani say "I am the body". The jnani does not say "The body is my true nature". Not even the ajnani would say that. The jnani would say "The Self is my true nature". And that Self does include the body. But the body is conditional, the Self is unconditional. If you say that the body or the individual is your true nature, then you essentially are saying that your true nature is conditional, which it is not.

Right. So how the heck then do you come out knowing for absolute certain that appearing individual persons, individuated shoes, piles of dog poo, paper-clips, are each, individually, experiencing/perceiving?

Good point!

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 6:22:38 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 6:22:38 GMT

Reefs: One key characteristic of realizations as opposed to mere insights is that realizations have a visceral component, which means they are not just a memory.

BUT, and big But; that 'visceral/feeling component' in tandem with SR, is a facet of "mind's informing," and not an actual facet of the 'seeing through/realization' itself.

You still are deeply confused about the difference between the 'seeing through' (non-conceptual) aspect of SR, vs. the conceptual/mind informing components.

Defintion: Visceral--relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect.

No doubt about it Reefsy....SR does impact experience...does impact 'inward feelings.' But make no mistake lady,

, feelings are not themselves ever equal to transcendent seeing...might seem as such, but in clarity, you'll see that that is not in fact, the case.... complete and total BS....you know..."bovine excrement."

Reefs: That's why realizations will change your perspective forever, insights only change your perspective as long as you remember them. Gopal is the best example here. He can argue in one sentence that he can't know anything about you beyond that you are appearing to him, and in the next sentence he will ask you why you mistook the people in your dream for real people. Which means he can't even remember his insight for the length of two sentences!

That is akin to saying that in the seeing through of the mirage, that the apparent Oasis disappears and you no longer can see it. Which is plain and simply NOT so.

Just because Reefs is but an appearance arising and that is clear does not mean that appearance, and all it's appearing facets ceases to arise/appear. Even though I know Reefs to be an empty appearing arising to "the abiding ground of consciousness," does not mean that the appearance of a deluded individual named Reefs, who apparently believes that he knows dream people to be 'actual perceivers/experiences' ceases to appear. You've just not thunk this one thru, dear appearing, delusional, silly, stubborn person.

On the other hand, take ZD's long list of existential questions, suddenly gone. Most of them have been seen thru as misconceived and so there is no reason, no grounds for them to ever arise again.

Complete and utter bullshit. ZD has shared that ALL his existential questions were answered/resolved. That is something very different than them being "seen through."

Confused
Aug 4, 2011 at 6:46am
Quote
Post Options
Post by zendancer on Aug 4, 2011 at 6:46am
Yeah, my take on this is somewhat different, although it points to the same thing. I had hundreds of existential questions, and I found answers that satisfied me intellectually as well as existentially. I wanted to understand what a subatomic particle IS, and I found out. I wanted to know if God (or whatever the word "God" points to) exists, and I found out. I wanted to understand what could explain all of the observer problems in quantum mechanics and anthropology, and I found out. I wanted to understand the implications of Bell's Theorem, and I did. I wanted to know what a baby sees before it imagines what it sees, and I found out. I wanted to know what samadhi, kensho, and satori is, and I found out. I wanted to know the answers to hundreds of Zen koans, and I found out.

ZD" You already know the answer to all of these questions, but you don't yet know that you know. There is body-knowing and mind-knowing, and currently you haven't learned to access what your body knows.

Zendancer: The questions that started me searching for the truth seemed very simple and straightforward. Here are just a few of the hundreds that bugged me:

1. What is the meaning of life?
2. Why am I here?
3. How did life appear in a lifeless universe?
4. What is a subatomic particle, really?
5. How could anything act like a particle one moment and a wave the next?
6. How could anything move from point A to point B without crossing the space between? (something claimed in a physics textbook)
7. What could explain the observer paradoxes in every field of science? (how does the mere act of observation physically affect what is observed?)
8. If I could shrink myself to the size of a photon and look at a photon, what would I see?
9. What is time, space, energy, matter, electricity, or gravity?
10. Is there a smallest particle of matter, and what would be the determinant of that?
11. Where did I come from and where am I going?
12. Is there a God?
13. What, if anything, could explain any of the miracles in the Bible, or are all miracle stories nonsense?

I spent almost twenty years thinking about these kinds of questions without finding any answers. After five months of meditation and some internal mental relaxation, answers to a few of these questions suddenly appeared. This suggested to me that all of the other answers I wanted to find could probably be found by silently contemplating what I wanted to know rather than by thinking. Sure enough, as the mind became increasingly silent, more and more answers appeared.

In the process of entering the spiritual circus tent various new questions appeared, but they, too, were subsequently answered
ZD: We can say that it is possible to (1) find the answers to all existential questions

You actually used to argue quite robustly with ZD about this! Any recollection?

Reefs: Reefs Avatar
Feb 6, 2014 at 10:32am Reefs said:
That's exactly the point. You are trying to come up with an answer to an existential question (what is the meaning of life?) and that's where the meaninglessness is. Existential questions are misconceived, so don't have answers. They have to be seen for what they are. Which means all your answers to existential questions are meaningless and without real consequences. So it doesn't matter if you believe in a purpose or not, or in volition or not.

You also used to argue against ZD with his assertion of "multiple" realization. Any recollection of that?

You are so egoically bent...all you care about is coming up on top of an argument....no actual intention towards upholding the Truth. You're the equivalent of a Justin Trudeau.

Get outta jail free card at it's best?

Reefs: The entire basis for that is gone. And that doesn't involve memory, that involves a fundamental change in perspective. And so it is with CC/kensho, at least the way we use that term here.

Fundamental change in perspective = a shift in position/non-position of seeing, NOT a switch-up in ideas....not a something gleaned in a mystical/woo-woo moment of experience...(that you have declared yourself...can be explained/shared in a story that has a beginning and end).... You are erroneously asserting Kensho/CC as a shift in locus seeing...when really, it's nothing more than a change/difference in content/experience.

Last Edit: Jul 16, 2022 6:25:48 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 6:49:55 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 6:49:55 GMT

Reefs: You are confusing thingness (the appearance you mentally categorize as cat) with suchness (the true nature of that appearance that you mentally categorize as cat). A CC would have cleared that up for you.

It's actually you who is confused. Absent the appearance of "A" cat, you have no suspicion..no sense...no idea "a cat" is appearing to then transcend that seeing and see the "suchness."

"Suchness" does indeed "include" all discrete, individuated appearing objects/things, but it also includes all ideas, thoughts, nuanced senses and feelings....anything at all that appears/is perceived. Your "suchness" paint-brush does not sweep inclusively enough. You're missing a whole bunch of shit...categorizing it as something "different from/apart from" suchness.

You acknowledge the appearing object/thing...then declare it as a non-thing...denying it is even appearing a distinct thing/object, and then you insist that you know that object/thing to be "perceiving/experiencing" by virtue of realizing "suchness"......

Your assertion was from the onset of the discussion that you knew for absolute certain that an appearing person, dog, shoe, pile of bovine excrement, was each, discretely, individually, experiencing/perceiving.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 7:11:08 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 7:11:08 GMT

Reefs: In case you haven't noticed, what you call SR is not what we call SR.

Only problem is, you've changed your definition of SR to the point where it no longer resembles the original:

Reefs:

Self-realization doesn't mean new knowledge is acquired because it's not the seeker that becomes self-realized.

SR refers to how things are seen, not what is seen.

You speak from the position of self, not Self. SR is not an experience. SR is not happening to self. The self is not invited to the party.

The confusion here is that Tenka, for whatever reason, doesn't (or can't) distinguish between Self and self which is essential for these dialogs to have any kind of meaning.

No. 'Seeing the false as false and the real as real' and SR are synonyms. Seeing clearly is SR. There's no process. Like stupidity and denseness are synonyms, but denseness is not the process to stupidity. It is stupidity.

Reefs: What happens after self-realization is an entirely individual and subjective affair. There's no point in comparing those experiences. Comparing those experiences leads to very strange conclusions.

In reality, there is no marble and no David in the marble. If you are seeing a David in the marble, you are seeing something that is not there. The David is the separate volitional person. It's actually not there. And it takes effort to create it. You have it ass-backwards. As long as you are busy working on your David, you are trapped in the illusion of separation.

Surely you can see that the David in the marble is just a figment of imagination?

Are you maybe thinking that perception can only happen within a context? Context does not apply to SR.

That's exactly your problem. You think what is happening here has any kind of value in terms of SR. I don't have such an illusion. All I'm basically saying here for years is "No, that's not it!" - so the best thing that could happen is that your realize the futility of your salvation plan creation and finally take the STFU route. Which won't bring you one inch closer to SR either. But at least it will release a great deal of suffering that your feverish search has created. That's why I say, this forum is more about psychology, free online self-therapy than anything else.

This one though, trumps 'em all.....and it renders your erroneous assertion that there's a walk/talk issue in play for those speak of "not knowing," (seeing ALL experiential content as empty!)...

Reefs: TMT. He may just remain silent. That you have seen the mirage as the mirage that it is, doesn't mean that you go there to fill your canteen anyway. That you still answer to your name doesn't say anything about your realization status. That's the Jeff Foster trap.

Seriously dude/dudette, there's been some stellar wafflers on these forums over the years, but YOU are KING/QUEEN.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 7:31:48 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 7:31:48 GMT

Reefs: Well, the other perceiver question, for a start. Once you have seen that there is only the Self, that there are no others, the question about the nature of others becomes baseless, misconceived.

But your entire argument is based upon the point that you DO know the true nature of the appearance of "THE person" standing before you and that that equals your absolute/certain knowing that that appearing person is in fact: perceiving/experiencing!

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 7:35:53 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 7:35:53 GMT

3 hours ago Gopal said:
Hey all my spiritual friends Blessed with another Baby girl today !

Congratulations Gopal!

Hey, congratulations! Let's hope she's a real perceiver!

Please explain how that would be any different from her being an "apparent perceiver."

Why would it matter?

This is the bit you don't understand.

The difference between an "actual" perceiver vs. an apparent one, is merely the presence of or absence of the delusion of believing that can be known.

In terms of experience...unfolding story....no difference. No-thing that appears is actually known for absolute certain beyond the fact of it's appearance. The entire story/dream is inherently empty of Truth/inherent existence.

Last Edit: Jul 16, 2022 7:36:42 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 7:45:14 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 7:45:14 GMT

Reefs: Right. In our definition, without seeing thru the SVP, no SR. What is your definition?

How the heck do you "see through the SVP" and still somehow come out knowing for absolute certain that the appearing person/body is a perceiver/experiencer?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

Reef's Changing Ontology Jul 16, 2022 7:48:34 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 7:48:34 GMT

Reefs: What's that got to do with thingness and suchness? Can you explain?

What does "seeing the appearing person.....an appearing shoe.....an appearing pile of dog crap" have to do with seeing each distinctly appearing item/object/thing there, as "experiencing/perceiving"? That is after all the assertion that you have been erroneously arguing for all this time the inception of the original point made that ultimately, perception on the part of the appearing "other person" was inferred...not actually known for absolute certain...not known as Truth.