|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 7:51:42 GMT
Yup. There's a reason Reefs banned me and E from ST...both of us, prevented from civilly challenging his pov. Reefs likes/needs things clean and simple and he's demonstrated attachment to that ideal in his moderation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 8:01:18 GMT
But isn't it your assertion/argument that you DO know for absolute certain that the distinctly appearing cat and the distinctly appearing dog are each, distinctly perceiving/experiencing?
My point has been precisely what you seem to be pointing to there; The cat and the dog are both "empty appearances" arising within to that which fundamentally abides...they are both not-separate from that abiding ground, entirely dependent upon it for their temporal appearance...thus, as temporal, empty appearance, there is nothing more to know/nothing more than can be known "absolutely" about them....they are relative, experiential content only.....devoid/absent of inherent existence in their own right.
Do you or don't you know for absolute certain that a dog/cat that appears to you is "perceiving/experiencing"? You seem to be wavering from your initial assertion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 8:05:42 GMT
Bullshit. You're not lazy as much as you are now seeing you've been deluded all this time in your ongoing years or erroneous argument.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 8:08:33 GMT
Stop the intellectualizing....what is the perspective from which you are seeing from when you insist you DO know for absolute certain that an appearing cat and an appearing dog are each perceiving/experiencing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 8:25:01 GMT
That's not at all how you first spoke of SR. You "always" saw it that way?  Really? That assertion just does not hold up in the face of your past posts; Please tell us, where was the absolute/certain seeing/knowing of "aliveness/experiencing/perceiving" on the part of appearing persons referenced above? It was only only when you began to argue against the assertion of "not knowing" relative to appearing people that you began insisting upon CC as a facet of SR. Don't forget, there's an entire forum filled with your past posts to support what I am saying.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 8:33:25 GMT
If you go back in years in the ST forum, Reefs was a nasty piece of work who used to belittle and poke fun at anyone who merely suggested that a woo-woo experience might have something to do with SR. It's beyond crazy that he/she is now insisting that part and parcel of SR is a mystical/woo-woo experience that reveals all singular, individually appearing things to be having their own discrete, individualized experience/perception.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 8:44:14 GMT
 Context flipping at it's best. Relatively/experientially speaking, appearing people arise with their apparent perception...one apparent package. Satch does not need to know you are "an actual" perceiver to engage with the apparent perception relative to the appearing Reefs character. What would it look like if Satch were to know you as an 'actual' perceiver, vs. a relative, experiential character who perceived? You don't know do you? There'd be no difference. And that's just it; There will still be the appearance of perceiving/distinctly experiencing people even after seeing through separation....just as there will still be the appearance of the oasis after realizing there is not actually water there. Surely by now you should at least conceptually know this Reefs?  WTF? you see Oneness "within form"? Oneness is seen from "beyond/prior to" mind....beyond all concepts...things/objects, and yes, form.... You are sooooooooooooooooooooooo confused Reefs. Regardless of what had actually been "realized," in the past you at least spoke/wrote as though you had conceptual grasp of Nonduality. Now it's as though you are on par with the likes of Tenka. (Sorry Tenka, but you are still deeply asleep within the dream...not even suspicious that there even IS another pov).
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 8:54:55 GMT
At one point though did you have this "big realization" where the two sides of the coin were included, 'cause all of your past positings where you insisted your were arguing from a position of SR, were seemingly absent the "woo-woo/experiential" side of that coin. You were very adamant back then that SR/realization was always a seeing through.....a negation...a seeing of what is NOT SO. (now you seem to right on board with ZD that SR = a pretty much never-ending series of "realizations"...which of course is a total nonsense). It's okay if you've come to see/realize things differently, but the problem with you Reefs, has always been your lack of honesty, integrity and courage....not sure what it would take for you to come out and admit that your ontology has changed. That said, stranger things have happened.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 8:59:46 GMT
For years now you have been arguing that you know for absolute certain that appearing people, socks, rocks and piles of dog poop are having discrete, individuated experience...are "perceivers/experiencers" based upon what is none-other than a "woo-woo" experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:07:02 GMT
So, i wonder Reefs...is it solipsism when the rock/pile of poop is seen as an empty appearance arising within/to consciousness too, or does that label "Solipsism" only apply to appearing people who are apparently sentient/perceiving/experiencing?
Why do you single out appearing "persons" from other appearing things?...or, do you? Is the appearing sock/pile of poop also known for absolute certain to be "experiencing/perceiving"?
|
|
)