|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 21:27:15 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. Right. So why do you continue to refer to your Kensho/CC as "a realization"? Precisely...and, whether you see it or not, it is true that the seeing of "aliveness/experiencing/perceiving on the part of appearing people and things," IS an improving of mindscape content. I think many cringe at the idea of 'not knowing' relative to appearing people...not so much when it comes to stuff like shoes, socks and piles of poop, as those being empty is not such a big deal, but surely, it is when applied to "the appearing people that are loved and cared about." So, huge "relief factor" indeed for those seekers to find some way to keep their sacred experience of others as perceivers/experiences (T)rue. Yes! So if realization/seeing then is not about 'what is seen--like woo-woo,' then how is it you are not calling what you saw in a CC/Kensho event, "a realization"? Yuppers! Isn't it weird that back then, you saw that so clearly, but now obviously, you are having trouble now comprehending that 'realization is pointing to a loss....an absence...that is can't be described'? Yes...that has been my point to you as you insist upon a realization that 'adds to the knowledge bank,' rather than subtracts from it. I wonder Reefs, at the point where you wrote the above quotes, had you had your CC/Kensho yet? The story you are now telling has you supposedly having the seeing through aspect at the same time that you had the CC/adding knowledge aspects. Strange that you never talked about the adding knowledge aspect at all back then, and even went further and spoke against such an aspect. Things that make ya go hmmmmmm......   |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 16, 2022 21:37:04 GMT
Reefs-of-yesteryear: Clarity is nothing new you need to acquire, it's an absence.
Eggzacktly!! So how the hell do you go from saying that to insisting that there IS a realization inherent to SR, whereby you DO in fact acquire new knowledge? That's about as plain and bold as it can be stated; Clarity is nothing new you need to acquire...it's an absence. Perfectly put. Kay. This is what I don't get. Above there you sound as though you are speaking from the position of SR/impersonal seeing, which if so, means you were SR at the time of writing it. But there you are, clearly saying that anything constructive/positive that appears to be gained (new knowledge) is self-deception. You are not even giving the merest mention to the supposed "other side of the coin of SR" that you are now insisting was part and parcel of your SR. It's clear that it wasn't until some time after SR that you noted the importance of what you now refer to as the CC/Kensho component/side of the coin. You say you didn't talk about it because you just assumed it was part & parcel of all SR, but if that was so, then surely you wouldn't be specifically saying that realization = a loss and not a gain..? Somethin's not adding up. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 0:56:15 GMT
Reefs-of-yesteryear: 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. Perfectly put. When did you completely change your mind about this? At what point after your supposed SR, did you start to believe that circumstances/events ARE essential info? What convinced you that there is more to a "realization" than luggage getting sucked into the abyss? If you really did have the seeing through part and the kensho/CC all in one fell swoop as you have said, then why did it take so long for you to include the Kensho/CC part as an important facet? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 1:13:52 GMT
That right there was/is your first mis-step into this now, years-long convo.
The term "consciousness" is a pointer to that which lies fundamentally abiding to any and all experiential content. It's not a reference to "a state." States appear/arise within experience....a state is experienced. "Consciousness/awareness" as unbounded/fundamental, is not a reference to anything arising in experience...not a conceptual 'thing,' not a state, not a some-thing, not a some-one/entity. You can only know of it directly via a shift in seeing from "within experience," to "beyond/prior to."
Otherwise, you are simply grasping at conceptual straws...trying to understand something via mind/reasoning/concepts, which are not the right tools....if anything, they get in the way, obscure.
The idea that "consciousness = a state of being conscious, thus, if all is consciousness, then that means that every appearing thing is in a state of being conscious...therefore, I know the appearing person standing before me to be alive, perceiving/experiencing, is a nonsense.... It's a complete misconception of the pointer of "fundamental consciousness."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 1:19:19 GMT
At what point Reefs did you change your mind/assessment of Segal? You did a complete and total turn-around. That's a rare thing to go from seeing someone as having a split-mind problem, to then quoting them as a means of augmenting your point/position. You pretty much went from declaring her to be a nut-bar, to declaring her to be a sage. What happened to change your opinion...seems to me that change happened around the time you dug in your heels to argue that you did know other people, shoes, paperclips, piles of poop, to all be perceivers/experiencers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 6:04:45 GMT
Agreed. Philosphical solipsism, as an adopted and fixed position, is indeed based upon TMT....& it fails to even consider that the "self" that is posited as existent in comparison to "other appearing selves" is also of the very same category of those 'others'.....appearance only.
This is why the realization that of inherent emptiness of all appearances/all perceivables, (which of course, necessarily includes so called "other people,") is not to be conflated with "philosophical solipsism."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 7:00:40 GMT
And you have deemed “people” to be appearance only, not real, not existent in their own right. But you also insist that you know for absolute certain that appearing people are in fact, actually perceiving/experiencing. Again, how the heck do you on one hand see that appearing people are not real, appearance only, but then ALSO somehow know for absolute certain that each appearing person is in fact experiencing/perceiving? But that's what "separation" is! An erroneous belief that the false/imagined is actual! Your absolute knowing that an appearing person is experiencing/perceiving, renders what you indicate to be “not existent in it’s right…false…illusory…that which comes and goes” to be an actual “experiencer/perceiver” which renders it “an entity.” That means there IS separation! yes, the world of form need not disappear to realize Oneness so long as form/all appearance is clearly seen to be empty of inherent existence....arising temporally, dependent upon the abiding ground. “Form, in the abstract” is the SVP perspective? Not so. The SVP takes form at face value….where’s the ‘abstraction’? You are doing some very fancy finagling, to try to wriggle out of your previous assertions. Separation comes into play when the locus of seeing is still erroneously with the appearing person….and in your insistence of absolute knowing that the appearing person is indeed a perceiving/experiencing entity, you reify that separation…reify that erroneous locus of seeing. Ultimately, there is NO perceiver...no experiencer. So how the hell do you know for certain that the appearing body/mind person IS one?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 7:18:47 GMT
Damn...so you really are making the point that in SR, there is an important distinction/categorization to be made between perceivables? That appearing form is somehow of a different category when it comes to SR than appearing ideas, senses, feelings, etc. I can most definitely tell the difference between an image/idea vs. a directly experienced "form," but when it comes to the shift in SR....seeing prior to mind vs. still seeing from within the dream, that difference no longer matters. The "entirety" of perceivables must be seen through...seen to be empty....otherwise, the dream's still gotcha! All those sacred cows have to go! No-thing, no idea, no subtle some-thing passes through the sieve/filter of clarity. Who are you referencing here? Has someone actually asserted that their night time dreams are completely blended and indistinguishable from their daytime, waking experience?  The term "appearance," in Nonduality has always referenced the entire gamut of experiential content. That is actually quite funny...stunning kind of..... that you thought otherwise. In that quote above Reefs, were you only referencing specifically 'form' as not real, not existent in it's own right or were you referencing anything at all that arises/appears as a facet of experience...? all "perceivables"? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 7:33:28 GMT
Any 'what' that remains to be seen, is still "experiential content" which = a perceivable. All perceivables are stains. - Niz This idea you have that there is something "beyond" the temporal appearance of an object/thing that is something other than the non-conceptual, abiding, unbounded ground from it arises, equals a 3rd, middle layer. There is no such thing in existence. There is the relative/personal and there is the abiding...absolute/impersonal....no middle layer in between. That is why it's said that all appearance is empty, so that the mystics who see/experience all sorts of layers and levels within general, experiential content, cannot claim any of it as Truth. The seeing of an alive, vibrant field of energy that lies substrate to all definable, labelled, distinct objects/things, is mysticism, not Truth. The Truth is; All perceivables are empty and devoid of inherent existence. That which abides is not an arising within experience...it is not a perceivable...not a 'what' at all. Hint: If you 'see it/perceive it,' it's not "fundamental." |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 17, 2022 7:36:09 GMT
In the absolute context, the cat is known as a perceivable/appearance, empty of it's own inherent existence, arising dependent upon the abiding ground for it's temporal appearance.
You are the one who is confused.
|
|
