|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:50:58 GMT
Hey Reefs...I see you are here.... reading along. Why not man/woman up and log in and have an actual convo? What are you afraid of? I don't bite...I just address BS as I see it, honestly, with integrity, with the intent of unveiling Truth.
If you're going to come here to read what I write, why not engage?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 9:58:35 GMT
Reefs: I've read the book and I get the exact same impression Silence got. Segal's problem seemed to be a split mind problem, one part of mind wondering where the other part went.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 10:00:39 GMT
Reefs-of-yesteryear:
Aha, seems you think that mind and consciousness are the same. Niz was talking about surrender to the self or the guru (who is the self), not to consciousness/mind. Niz was pointing prior to consciousness. If it would be possible for you (a separate volitional person) to let go of 'being conscious', your world would disappear also. Which cannot be because before there is being conscious of a person, consciousness has to be conscious of itself. The person does not exist in itself, it's an appearance that does come and go in consciousness, so it's existence depends on something else, consciousness itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 10:01:53 GMT
Reefs-of-yesteryear: The witness will do that. The persons (or 'people') have no power of their own. They are mere reflections, appearances on the screen of consciousness the witness is watching. As soon as the witness withdraws attention from the persons (people), they disappear no matter if they did use tools or not. What the person does or doesn't do is irrelevant. As long as there's a person (people), everything is conditional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 10:02:47 GMT
ROYY: I assume with 'we' you mean separate volitional persons, appearances in mind. Since consciousness itself is the one that is conscious, the dissolution of the one that is conscious would mean the dissolution of everything that appears in consciousness. IOW, your world, all worlds, would disappear. Which means no play of ideas anymore, not even any kind of perception anymore. It doesn't seem that you have that in mind when you talk about 'the one that is conscious'. It rather seems that you take the separate volitional person, an appearance in mind which itself is an appearance in consciousness again, as 'the conscious one'. But that's the unconscious one. So basically you are trying to make the unconscious one unconscious, try to sell water by the river.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 10:03:17 GMT
ROYY: I find this entire Seagal account very odd. Obviously there was still a lot of minding going on and existential question haven't been wiped out. Sounds very much like depersonalization disorder, i.e. split mind taken to an extreme.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 10:04:02 GMT
Reefs-OYY: Don't make it more complicated than it actually is. What is real exists in its own right. It does not come and it does not go. What is false does not exist in its own right. And it does come and go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 10:04:25 GMT
Reefs-OYY: You are a metaphysician, you are interested in ontologies. Same goes for your friends. Non-duality is not metaphysics, it's the end of all ontologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 10:06:46 GMT
Reefs: You see, the issue was if it can be known with certainty if another is conscious or not. You say it cannot be known, and your straw-Enigma says the same. Which begs the question, if - as you are convinced and firmly seem to believe - all is consciousness, then how can you in all seriousness be in doubt if another is conscious or not?
It's abundantly clear--All is conscious has been erroneously miscontrued with: All is conscious.
Nothing more going on there than minding about the pointer "consciousness," and then logitation/reasoning....NOT the hallmark of clarity by any means.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 21:14:33 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 Yes, precisely! And on of those misconceived concepts is the "experiencing/perceiving entity/person." So I ask you Reefs; How is it that can be seen through, but ALSO there be a realization that the appearing person before you, is known for absolute certain to be an actual perceiver/experiencer? The very question of "are appearing people perceiving" is one of those that falls away/becomes obsolete, because it's clearly seen that ultimately, the appearing body/mind is not an existent entity in it's own right....it is not actually a "perceiver/experiencer,"....the "perceiving/experiencing entity," was only ever imagined. If the question of whether or not appearing folks are 'actually perceiving/experiencing' is misconceived, then so is any answer/resolve you arrive at. But somehow, you say you DO know for absolute certain, via a realization that you had related to a CC/Kensho experience, that appearing people, appearing rocks, socks, piles of poop even, are all individual "perceivers/experiencers." |
|
