|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 18, 2024 22:27:23 GMT
And yet you insist that you have Absolute knowing that each individual human (objects too!) are each, alive, conscious, distinctly, discretely, uniquely, experiencing/perceiving.
How can it be that the mere perception of an individual equals an act of abstract distinction, but then somehow you possess Absolute, certain, realized knowing that each of those individuals, is alive, conscious, experiencing it's own unique experience?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 19, 2024 5:35:05 GMT
Discrete, 'individual' things/objects/people DO appear. Fundamental separation does not. It's separation that is false....erroneously imagined to be, when in actuality, it's all essentially One....singular.
Notice ZD how you are equating the appearance of distinction with separation? Distinction does not = separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 19, 2024 21:46:50 GMT
The question could also be framed as; Does the "me character/personal experience" continue on past bodily death? That is a valid relative question that is not necessarily misconceived. It's only misconceived if the "me character" is taken to be something more than experiential/an appearance, empty and devoid of abiding, inherent existence.
If experience continues post bodily death, that remains relative/experiential and does not conflict at all with the fundamental Truth of the matter, which still remains, the apparent 'me character' is appearance only....an expression within/to abiding Awareness.
So to you, "existential realization" is simply a ferreting out of mind-based knowledge that resides at some 'subconscious' level?
Realizations re: existential questions do not leave you with a 'definitive answer' to your question....rather, they reveal the question itself as misconceived. Misconceived questions do not have 'definitive' answers to them.
No. Existential questions only dissolve/get seen through by a seeing that is 'prior to/beyond mind,' not by "bearing in mind" the 'what/something/additive knowledge' that the seeker's curiosity is seeking after.
There's a misconception at the crux of the seeker's desire to know "what" IS....he thinks there is a conceptual knowing that will satisfy mind....if such an answer is acquired, IF mind feels satisfied in it's additive knowing, the seeker can rest assured that what he's got there is NOT in fact a realization and is instead, very much a conceptual, mind-satisfying, erroneous answer to a misconceived question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 19, 2024 21:53:22 GMT
Beyond intellect perhaps, but that does not mean beyond 'mind/minding.' You are conflating the arrival at a pat answer to a koan with 'realization/seeing prior to/beyond mind.' Koan are answered by accessing a different aspect of mind/minding than specifically the intellect. That's all. There may be intuitive mind-knowing involved...what you're referenced as 'body-knowing,' which still very much involves aspects of mind/minding/ideation.
Here you are again positing realization with a practice/causal path. There is no sure-fire path that guarantees the shift in locus of seeing that equals true 'realization/seeing through/absence.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 19, 2024 22:08:18 GMT
This is a stellar example of context mixing.
It's quite clear that Melvin's reference of "me" addresses nothing other than apparent body and the sense of that body being the source of consciousness...of perception and unfolding, personal experience. So you start out there, with a vantage point that lies beyond appearance, but then as you speak of "what is looking out of your eyes...thinking "your" thoughts, the body as some kind of 'rental,' you invoke the personal viewpoint.....and then, you reference 'the driver,' as 'not anything that can be imagined,' you take a leap to the impersonal vantage point again.
The idea of "looking out of MY eyes...and of thinking MY thoughts," in SR, gets illuminated as 'appearance only,' which takes care of that erroneous idea of the body as giving rise to consciousness....or of the body as a rental car.....or the body as an 'extension' of Source....or as an existent something that is temporarily "infused with" Source/abiding essence.
The body arises in consciousness....Consciousness does not arise in the body. SR straightens that out, clearly in a way that dissolves all those silly ideas about the body as a 'rental' or an 'extension' of something greater than itself.
All of those ideas = fundamental separation.
Not necessarily....not IF the "I" being referenced is simply the experiential 'me character,' who has been realized as an appearance only, arising within/to abiding Awareness.
There is nothing in SR that eliminates the possibility of continued experience of the very same 'me character/personality' following bodily death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 19, 2024 22:44:36 GMT
That is the question that you'd do well to ask when you are insisting upon an Absolute, realized knowing that says discrete, individuated body/minds as well as discrete objects/things, such as paper-clips and rocks, ARE, 'each' alive, conscious, having their own unique experience/perception.
It's so odd because on one hand, like here, you immediately leap to the transcendent "You," and leave out the appearing personality/me character of experience, but when it comes to the idea of "other perceivers," you focus upon the appearance and fail to transcend that, to focus upon the inherent emptiness and temporarily of all that appears. Then, you invoke "Awareness as ground," as you "infuse" the appearing body/mind with what you say are it's "qualities/properties" of aliveness....as a form, being consciously aware, giving rise to experience and perception. In that you reify a perceiver/experiencing some-thing/some-one, as actual/existent.
|
|
