|
|
Post by Figgles on May 25, 2023 3:17:39 GMT
An interesting convo from yesteryear JLY that speaks to your present stance;
That is quite the statement.
You are saying that a stranger approaching you to try to convince you an idea you hold is false, when you are not willing to part with those ideas/beliefs, is just as bad as that stranger stealing your bike from under ya?
If ever there were an admittance by someone that he holds his views/beliefs to be sacred, that is it!
And really, IF you are participating on a public forum supposedly dedicated to Truth, you're already consented and by virtue of partaking in the convo, have demonstrated your willingness to engage with people who may indeed try to 'separate you from your mental objects.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 25, 2023 18:36:06 GMT
JLY, you are quite obviously interested in this convo...you are quite obviously coming here to read my responses to your posts and then you are responding on ST, by formulating more questions for the chat-bot, based on my responses. I am unable to log into ST because I continue to be banned/blocked from doing so. If not for that, I would most definitely respond to you directly, (civily and calmly, I might add) in that very thread where you are posting on ST.
You however, are free and more than welcome to log in/join in here on GAB, to directly engage. Why won't you do this instead of coming here to read, copy/pasting my assertions and then re-framing those into a question that you pose to the chat-bot?
And instead of using a chat-bot to say what it is quite clear that YOU yourself want to directly say, why not skip that step and just man up and address me/my posts directly, instead of hiding behind chat-bot answers?
I will never shy away from direct challenge of my assertions or actions. How about you?
Fwiw, this bit from the chat-bot answer: "The non-dual perspective encourages exploration, open-mindedness, and the recognition of the fluid and ever-evolving nature of truth" contains an outright affront to the very pointer of "Oneness."
The idea that "Truth is ever evolving" is deluded/misconceived...it directly contradicts the pointer of "Truth as abiding/unchanging."
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 25, 2023 19:02:08 GMT
So, in other words, all ideas/beliefs must ultimately be transcended and seen to be experiential content/appearance only, absent inherent existence/inherent Truth. So, that applies then as well to everything the chat-bot is asserting!   (You didn't quite think that one through, eh?  ) Of course, it's important to ultimately see all beliefs..all concepts....ALL ideas/thoughts for what they are, but if we're talking the ways that sincerity/earnestness towards seeking the Truth, shows up/doesn't, we are speaking from within the context of relative, appearing behaviors/actions....personal/me character behaviors. If you wanna stand on the ultimate Truth that nothing said, no idea, no concept/thought can capture Truth, then best to stay off Nonduality discussion forums all together. Relatively speaking, do you really think an argument can be made that says one can be both sincere/earnest in his seeking for Truth, AND also remain unwilling to have his ideas/beliefs challenged/questioned? Your chat-bot answer says 'no.' You see, I am fine having my assertions directly challenged...in fact, I relish such conversations and I am outright asking you to come here to directly engage in such a conversation. But it's very clear from your behavior that you are not open to that same direct engagement/challenge. Are you willing to openly look at/discuss the reasons for your refusal to directly engage? If not, why not and doesn't that go against what chat-bot is saying about being willing and open to "questioning" ALL ideas...thoughts...concepts...beliefs? You seem to be standing pretty darned firm on your own ideas about this. What about that Mr. dirty-white-canvas shoe gazer? If chat-bot is correct, shouldn't you be open and willing to questioning your own ideas about me...about your reasons for refusing direct engagement here? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 25, 2023 19:12:51 GMT
What you've been doing here JLY, in using ChatGPT to get your digs in at me, indirectly, without having to directly engage me, by posing loaded questions that then receive an answer that conforms with your desired outcome quite succinctly demonstrates one of the perils of this technology.
It begins with someone, just like yourself, who upholds ChatGPT as being a sort of amazing, infallible "oracle" that by nature, tells the Truth and gives the highest answers available to humankind.
Then, you feed it a question that is already loaded towards the answer you are hoping it will give and when you receive an answer you are satisfied with, an answer that fulfills the agenda you are bent upon, you uphold that as though it is some sort of Absolute "proof" of your own, personal position.
The ways in which this technology might be used far supercedes any degree of seriousness and importance that a mere discussion on a Nonduality forum convo might have....quite scary indeed when you consider all the implications.
Thank you for providing this demonstration. It's been quite eye-opening, indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 27, 2023 3:11:15 GMT
Sure ya do.  While that is a very nice idea that lets you off the hook in terms of ego rising up to defend your own views, that's all it is dude. Mind will fabricate unending stories to try to squelch and obscure what's actually goin' on....anything to prevent that mirror from reflecting back to you your own hypocrisy and innate, personal need to defend the SVP that is so clearly at the core of all this nonsense. Instead of taking it personally (on ZD's part...of course ) try looking it as not a "diatribe" against a particular person, but rather, a pointing away from a common delusion where separation is still being imagined. The views of the person really are not "personally owned," by anyone. See that and your need to leap up to defend vulnerable, separate persons, will dissipate rather quickly. All of the contradiction lies in your corner JLY. You are the one who openly says he has an issue with taking posts from one forum to discuss/challenge them on another...and yet, you continue to come to my forum to read my posts and are then responding to them on ST. I have no problem with that per se...it's the hypocrisy of YOUR position that I'm calling out. YOU are the one who takes issue with that behavior, so what the heck are you doing engaging in it yourself? What concept is it you think I'm attached to? The idea that SR means an absence of need to protect sacred views by eschewing/avoiding challenging questions...? There are some very real and valid impacts that awakening has on experience and all of them, including the welcoming of challenging of ideas, all ultimately hinge upon an absence. So might it be actually so that waking up sometimes results in folks becoming deeply protective of their most sacred conceptual ideas/beliefs? I don't think so. Where there is a strong desire/need to avoid challenge....to run away when ideas are confronted/challenged, you can bet your bottom dollar and a dirty white canvas shoe, that an SVP is in the mix. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 27, 2023 3:25:12 GMT
When the me/person as an object THAT has the quality of perceiving gets seen for what it is, what do you think that does to the very idea of "other perceivers"?
The idea that there is a special experience that somehow supersedes the realization of Oneness....of undivided, abiding Awareness as the ground to all appearance, is a nonsense.
To see through a me THAT is a perceiver, is to see that the very idea of Absolute knowledge of "other" perceivers has no legs.
Multiple 'perceivers' is a facet of the dream/story....the knowing of perception is singular, direct, imminent and it's not known by an 'anyone/anything.'
How can it be realized that 'there are no others,' and also realized that those apparent others, ARE actually 'other perceivers'?
The very question where Absolute value is applied to relative/appearance = a misconceived question/mental confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 27, 2023 3:26:37 GMT
I call bullshit. You've never logged in...never engaged here, but you often visit. |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on May 28, 2023 19:17:41 GMT
I call bullshit. You've never logged in...never engaged here, but you often visit. More to the point, Spiritual Teachers is not ND. It’s a forum for spiritual dudes. Nothing wrong with that but you wouldn’t be here constantly needing to point to Truth if it did what the label said. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 3, 2023 1:26:57 GMT
Gee....ChatGPT kind of nailed that one, eh? That's actually quite an astute way of saying those who insist that they know for Absolute certain that appearing others and appearing objects/thing (socks, rocks, paperclips) are perceiving/experiencing, are breaching their supposed "non-dual perspective" and in their Absolute assurance of what they profess to know for certain, are invoking separation. That vantage point whereby one who is taking herself to be a perceiver/experiencer, has Absolute, certain knowing that the person appearing is also a perceiver/experiencer, is the height of a vantage point of separation....it's the personal perspective, complete with a separate me and a separate 'other.' |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 4, 2023 17:33:22 GMT
The question is misconceived from get-go. Both the assignation of aliveness or 'deadness/absence of aliveness' are misconceived. What is it folks don't get about "non-conceptual?" It's wild how mind will just keep sticking it's foot in the door, trying any way it can to assert "some-thing-ness" upon that which defies such.
This is plain and simply an erroneous assignation of quality/property to that which is beyond/prior to ALL quality/property, and can ultimately only be pointed to...cannot be conceptualized.
It's the tube of toothpaste idea....phenomenal appearance as 'infused with' conscious-ey goodness. Mind going where it has no business going.
This statement went from asserting Oneness to then a contradictory "connectivity" which invokes separation. That which is not actually separate does not need to be/cannot be "connected/unified." Chat-bot is clearly combining material from sages as well as wanna-be's and in doing so, is spewing forth contradictory assertions.
That = two-ness/separation. Again, a conceptualization of that which defies such.
"Aliveness" is an experiential quality. It's a misconception to attribute Experiential qualities/properties directly TO that which can ultimately only be pointed to.
"Inherent aliveness...capacity to perceive and experience," is of the relative context, personal, experiential vantage point, only.
To try to drag that experiential quality/property into the Absolute, to attribute Absolute quality/properties to the phenomenal, is a gross context mix.
And it's very important to note that saying that the question/answer is misconceived, is NOT to therefore say; Phenomenal appearance, appearing things/objects 'are not' alive...are not perceiving...they are dead....lackluster,' as has been suggested over and over again by Reefs/ZD during this discussion.
Again, there's that misconception again. Mind trying to force "consciousness" into a box that it can understand. A stellar case of pointer licking....again, the infusing tubes with toothpaste model. It's a nonsense.
And there's the straw-man, propped up in all his glory. This bit, contradicts the former.
It's always been that for the "I do know" crowd. It's either, paper-clips and people ARE known for Absolute certain to be alive, experiencers/perceivers, OR it's known for Absolute certain that paper-clips and people are "devoid of" aliveness...aka "dead," NOT perceiving, NOT aware, NOT experiencing.
That's a conceptualization of a pointer. The realization that ultimately no-thing/no-one is doing anything...no thinker, no doer, no perceiver, no experiencer, no-thing that IS living, no-thing that IS being, cannot be summed up conceptually by saying; objects/things are NOT alive...NOT conscious.
The entire question IS misconceived which means any knowing, any answer, is also by virtue of that, misconceived.
As mind is informed following SR, it's entirely fair to say that the world and all it's things is "experienced" in a new way that could be said to be "alive, vibrant, conscious and intelligent," but those are descriptors of experiential properties/qualities and are not to be misconstrued with/mistaken for Absolute Truth/realization.
|
|
(You didn't quite think that one through, eh? 
)
While that is a very nice idea that lets you off the hook in terms of ego rising up to defend your own views, that's all it is dude. 
