|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:14:49 GMT
All of that is assumed in the experienced 'baby'. Some of it, actually appears experientially..the 'excellent functioning organs,' likely more of an assumption than an experience.
There is the relative experience of baby and then there if there is SR, there is the greater seeing...the locus/non-locus of seeing which lies beyond/prior to that illuminates the baby and ALL appearance as arising within/to the abiding ground, completely dependent upon it for it's temporal appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:17:42 GMT
A misconceived concept has no basis in reality. When it is seen that separate volitional persons are not real, then every concept that has the reality of separate volitional persons as basis suddenly becomes obsolete because it is based on a misconception. Which means a whole bunch of questions will just fall away, basically every single existential question. - Reefs-of-yesteryear
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:19:46 GMT
Reefs: Woo-woo, like any other experience, can be described, usually in great detail.
Realization cannot be described since it's pointing to an absence as opposed to an experience.
The reason why experiences are often mistaken for a realization is exactly due to the relief factor Silence mentioned and the belief that woo-woo has some kind of significance.
Relief can be created by deconstructing concepts, by replacing one concept with another one, usually replacing a rather bulky and very specific one with a rather simple and general one.
Realization, however, cannot be created since it's not about replacing concepts or some new kind of information that has to be processed. Realization is not about improving mindscape content.
It's just seeing things for what they are, seeing what is real and what is false, appearance only. That's why 'seeing' is not about what is seen (like woo-woo), but more about how it is seen.
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:21:31 GMT
Reefs-of-yesteryear: Clarity is nothing new you need to acquire, it's an absence.
All that can happen is that you lose interest in these talks and see the futility of the spiritual circus. In this truthin business everything constructive and positive is eventually self-deception. That's why I'm not even making an effort to at least keep up a nice and constructive appearance. It would be only create hope and that would be feeding the troll (i.e. fuel minding).
A U.G. style no-nonsense approach of hopelessness (i.e. "you are phucked") is as direct as it gets. Everything else is a detour thru unicorn land.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:22:18 GMT
Reefs-O-Y-Y: Realizations thru-out the centuries are exactly the same since eons. Descriptions don't really vary. What varies are the circumstances under which realizations happen and the size and amount of luggage that gets sucked into the abyss as a result. But circumstances and events are absolutely non-essential information. Unfortunately however, the seeker gets obsessed with those non-essential details and tries to find a common thread there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:25:28 GMT
"Made of"......  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:27:24 GMT
Reefs: I'm just saying that for the term consciousness to mean anything it would mean the state of being conscious. So if you start with the premise that consciousness is all there is, as Gopal does, then everything and everyone (those 'others') is consciousness and therefore conscious.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:32:42 GMT
Good grief. No, that is NOT "split mind in action," rather, it's the nature of the experience...just because you see all apparent things as empty does not mean that appearances cease to appear. Why wouldn't you engage an appearance as it's appearing? Seriously? That would require the intervening of a someone who first judges "appearance only" as not worthy of engaging and the also a someone who stands guard as experience unfolds.
You are really deluded on this issue Reefs. Which clearly reveals that you have obviously not seen through separation at all. Conceptual grasp only...and a flimsy one at that....you've got some heavy misconceptions still deeply in play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:37:29 GMT
So, in other words, you take the appearance of Figgles character treating you as though you are self-aware as absolute/certain proof that Figgles therefore knows you for absolute certain to BE a self-aware perceiver...?
Is it at all possible in your ontology that the figgles character is simply engaging with what appears at face value....engaging the appearance 'as' it appears?
Absolute certainty is not indicated in the mere engagement with an appearance....that's where you consistently go wrong. How would you actually know the difference between someone engaging an appearance as it appears vs. engaging an appearance with absolute/certain knowing that what was appearing, was 'actual'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:45:42 GMT
The seeing of the inherent emptiness of ALL perceivable (which does not = philosophical Solipsism, as we are talking transcendent realization!) does indeed make it to the visceral, experiential feeling level, it's just not in the overt/observable way that you might think/expect. The entirety of the appearing story is now seen as an arising/appearance within/to the seeing from beyond/prior to, within which it is all "couched." Reefs, you might not 'think' that has no 'real life' consequences, but i assure you, you are as profoundly mistaken. Your problem is taking offence to the assertion that appearing people (like ALL appearing things) are inherently empty and devoid of independent, inherenet existence in their own right. You didn't seem to quibble too much when it was suggested that a pile of poop was an empty appearance, but when it was suggested that all appearing people also fell under that umbrella....hissy fit.  |
|
