It the Dream Alive? | Spiritualgab

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? Jun 4, 2023 18:01:11 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 4, 2023 18:01:11 GMT

To posit this as an existential question in an attempt to arrive at an Absolute answer, really is the equivalent of asking:

Is the ineffable actually effable? It the non-conceptual actually conceptual? Is an appearance actually an inherently existent some-thing.

It's a complete an utter nonsense. A gross misconception that illuminates the presence of delusion.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? Jun 4, 2023 18:15:08 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 4, 2023 18:15:08 GMT

Reefs:
That's pretty good. Because if you take true nature and aliveness out of non-duality, you get metaphysical solipsism (Enigma). And if you take the impersonal perspective out of metaphysical solipsism, you get epistemological solipsism (Gopal).

However, aliveness in the non-dual context is not a quality, because what non-duality is pointing to is without attributes or qualities, which is exactly why it cannot be talked about directly, only indirectly, i.e. you cannot say what it is, only what it is not. And when you've exhausted that route, what then remains, that's IT!

For the past however many years we've been having this convo, you HAVE been doing just that! Talking about it directly, saying WHAT it is!!!

You've just described the issue to a T. Aliveness is a term that describes a quality/property and non-duality is pointing beyond all attribute...beyond all quality...all property to that which cannot be captured conceptually, either by word or by mind. Behind SR lies a seeing through/absence, and it's only in that absence that non-conceptual Truth shines thru as it's now unobscured, free of delusion.

This is has been the issue from the get-go, as you jumped into the conversation to assert; Of course is can be known if appearing people and paperclips are experiencing/perceiving....are, experiencers/perceivers....it can be realized that it's all alive, and every-thing is conscious, every-thing, every-object is having it's own discrete experience...it's own perception".....you have been pointer licking to the 9th degree, Teegs.

Remember how nasty you used to get as you took folks to task for "pointer licking" back in the day?

In fact, I think you were actually the one who originally coined the term 'pointer licking.'

To talk about the phenomenal world as 'alive/vibrant/conscious/intelligent' following SR/waking up, is to describe the experiential change...the way the world kind of 'lights up' post SR. That is something entirely different though than 'realizing' that it's all alive, conscious, each and every discretely appearing thing, having it's own experience.

"Things/object//people" who "are having" AN experience, is of the relative, personal context only. The moment we leap to impersonal, all of that, Is now recognized as appearance only...a lovely, beautiful, important, relevant experience/appearance for sure...but still nevertheless, experiential content...thereby, ultimately, empty.

There's no need to know anything more than it IS appearing as it is...beautiful, engaging....interest...love provoking. Freedom means being okay with an absence of Absolute knowledge regarding the phenomenal. Try as you might, you're never going to milk Truth/Absolute answers out of the relative.

Last Edit: Jun 4, 2023 18:16:00 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? Jun 4, 2023 22:30:56 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 4, 2023 22:30:56 GMT

ZD: Agreed. After a CC I came away with the sense that all of reality is alive in some fundamental way because the entire field of all being is a unified suchness.

Gee...ya don't say....

...never heard you mention that all before ZD...

The thought that came to my rather boggled awestruck mind at that time was something like, "Holy cow, everything is an aspect of this aliveness, even the space between things." I looked around and thought, "even the electric poles are alive, and so is every molecule of water and air." It was rather astonishing, to say the least. This chatbot response is pointing to that same insight.

That there IS the apt word. It's an "insight." A mystical experiential gleaning. It's NOT "a realization/seeing through." It's still very much "in the dream" and while it might seem to be a transcendent, prior to/beyond seeing, it's plain and simply, not.

I remember mentioning this to Enigma many years ago by saying something like "The whole universe is alive because we are alive," but he dismissed that as an illogical conclusion. Ironically, I wasn't trying to be logical;

Do you understand though why he thought you were merely stating what you deemed to be a 'logical condlusion'?...hint: It has to do the word "because." ....the whole universe is alive BECAUSE we are alive. You are stating the fact that 'we are alive,' and using that to conclude that "therefore" the whole Universe is alive.

Don't blame E for simply going on what you said.

I was trying to convey something that is far beyond logic--that everything (every thing) is an aspect of an underlying unity that is what can be called "a living presence."

You did a crappy job.

One of my initial existential questions that used to bother me was, "How could life have appeared in an inanimate universe?" After the CC, I realized that the idea of the universe being a dead place of gas, dust, empty space, electro-magnetic radiation, and nuclear energy, was an erroneous idea.

And, what you're not seeing yet, is that as much as it's an erroneous idea to Absolutely know the universe to be dead, it's also just as erroneous to Absolute know the universe to 'be alive.'

Both of those are qualities/properties....themselves, appearance only. They do not apply to the ineffable...non-conceptual.

The problem is ZD that just like Reefs, you keep waffling between asserting an Absolute knowing of "aliveness, perceiver, experiencer," and then insisting that you are only pointing...and that you are not in fact referencing the "aliveness" that is known within experience as a quality/property.

You cannot have it both ways, that on one hand, you are merely pointing and then on the other, insist on a particular quality/property term.

How do I know you are asserting a quality when you use the term 'alive'? It's because you counter it with 'dead.'

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? Oct 27, 2023 18:41:42 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Oct 27, 2023 18:41:42 GMT

Do not conflate the apparent, limited, personal window of perception, nor any of the perceived content with primordial awareness/the abiding ground of awareness/consciousness.

The abiding ground of awareness exists absent any content at all to BE aware of, whereas, the apparent limited window of personal perception, is only imminently, directly known to be, when perceivables are arising/appearing. There is no perception absent a perceivable.

Thus, that apparent, limited, personal window of perception can itself aptly be described as "an arising within/to abiding awareness/primordial awareness."

To experience the unfolding dream/story as "being alive," is a valid descriptor of how life changes post SR, but it's not itself a realization.

"Aliveness" is a quality/property that is viscerally felt and like all things 'felt,' it is but an appearance arising within/to awareness and not to be conflated with a realized knowing.

Aliveness does not inherently exist. Awareness exists/abides and gives rise to a sense of aliveness.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? May 17, 2024 18:49:32 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on May 17, 2024 18:49:32 GMT

The quality of "aliveness" is "experiential content." The belief that there can be Absolute, realized knowing of aliveness, or of discrete, unique, individuated perceivers/experiencers is what it means to be "led by" experiential content.

What's interesting though is that in the seeing through of ALL experiential content, including all qualities/properties, in the mind/experience informing that follows SR, the world and all it's apparent things are experienced as "enlivened...vibrant....intelligent as a whole."

It's important though not to mix up what is the "experiential impact" of SR, with the shift in seeing that dissolves the inherent existent of all experiential content.

Last Edit: May 17, 2024 18:52:33 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? Jul 9, 2024 15:15:12 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 9, 2024 15:15:12 GMT

JLY:

Here, for fun, I asked AI answer your question:

ChatGPT: In non-dual terms, when it is said that one can get lost in thoughts, it means that the sense of self or the awareness that is usually present becomes absorbed or identified with the stream of thoughts. This identification creates the illusion of a separate, individual self that is entangled in the mental activity. Essentially, the awareness that is inherently free and unbound seems to lose itself in the content of thoughts, forgetting its true nature as the observer or witness of these thoughts.

In non-dual terms, when it is said that one can get lost in thoughts, it means that the sense of self or awareness that is usually present becomes absorbed or identified with the stream of mental activity. Normally, this sense of self or awareness exists as a quiet, observing presence, a kind of background consciousness that is always there, silently witnessing all experiences without getting involved in them.

....This shift allows one to experience a sense of peace and freedom, recognizing that thoughts are just phenomena passing through awareness, rather than the essence of who one is.

Does any of that ring as (T)rue for you?

That recognition if it's truly realization based and abiding, should make it crystal clear that a supposed Absolute knowing that "it's all alive and all things, all phenomenal objects and forms are conscious, experiencing/perceiving entities," has misconception at it's helm.

That sense of "aliveness".....that "additive knowing about some-thing/some-ones" also falls under the umbrella of "just phenomena passing through awareness, rather than the essence of what one is."

The chat-bot fails somewhat in that last statement as of course, if a "who" is taken to be existent, having 'essence,' then the phenomenal has been identified with...but will give a "conversational usage" pass in this instance.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? Jul 9, 2024 15:26:07 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 9, 2024 15:26:07 GMT

Jly:

Task: Examples please.

Example 3: Imagining a Conflict

Scenario: You have a disagreement with a friend.
Observation: Initially, you notice the disagreement and your feelings about it.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start imagining future arguments with this friend.
You create scenarios where you defend yourself and they misunderstand you further.
Your mind adds emotional content, like anger, hurt, and frustration.

Identification:
Instead of recognizing these as just thoughts, you identify with the aggrieved party.
You feel the emotions as if the imagined conflicts are real and happening now.
This identification might lead you to react defensively or aggressively the next time you see your friend, based on imagined rather than real events.

Or, how 'bout this: Your viewpoint gets challenged on a Nonduality forum. You start imagining that person has it in for you, personally....your mind adds emotional content about what a terrible person she is for daring to challenge an idea that you personally put forth....anger, hurt and frustration get added.

Instead of recognizing these as just thoughts, you identify as the aggrieved party....this identification leads you to react defensively and aggressively/verbally the next time you visit said forum...you lash out with name-calling and other derogatory, personal insult in your mistaking of what is really an impersonal dharma challenge, for the sake of pointing to Truth, for something personal.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? Jul 10, 2024 17:16:53 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 10, 2024 17:16:53 GMT

Zaz:
The most interesting observation is the implication that thoughts might not be believed". Is that possible? I'm open to that possibility. I've noticed with age that thoughts about dire circumstances appear remote. But I attribute that to age. The funny thing is for most folks thinking is so common they don't even notice it. I suspect that folks who say they rarely think, just don't notice that it's all they do. You don't realize just how prevalent thoughts are until you engage in meditation or some other practice. Of course the worse thing you can do is try to stop thinking. It's like poking a bear.

Trying the crow pose in yoga stops it without trying to stop it. It's that or a face plant.

In the clarity of SR, thoughts are no longer believed/taken to be Ultimately (T)rue, but relatively speaking, that does not translate to the presence of constant doubt/questioning of relative ideas taken to be 'facts.'

The questioning of relative ideas/beliefs is relative, experiential, in the dream. This is the quest of a seeker who is still trying to work within the dream to find his way out, when what is required to truly see the erroneous nature of the sense of separation, is a profound shift in locus of seeing to beyond/prior to all that.

In that realization of "blanket/across the board" emptiness of substance re: ALL thoughts/ideas/beliefs/facts, there is a sort of 'loosening/lightening' of any previous tenacity/grip a particular idea may have held over mind, as mind/experience is informed of the absence of separation, but that doesn't mean that 'facts' in general are denied or ignored...or can no longer be engaged with.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? Jul 22, 2024 19:29:43 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 22, 2024 19:29:43 GMT

Muttley:
Exactly. It's all alive, Igor (

). Just a hint, as to the nature of this .. "duality", this, dichotomy. That is all.

The quality of "alive-ness" or "dead-ness" for that matter, are "in the dream" facets and to apply either as a fundamental "knowing/Truth/realization" about THIS indicates a failure to transcend the dream-scape.

The Truth lies beyond all conceptualizations...beyond all properties/qualities, even those that are most basic, subtle, relatively/experientially "fundamental."

Again, we're talking the difference between consensus trance, "in the dream" awakening vs. SR/awakening to the dream...transcending the dream-scape.

"It's all alive, Igor," is an in the dream, mystical insight only.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

It the Dream Alive? Jul 25, 2024 18:01:49 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jul 25, 2024 18:01:49 GMT

Sharon:
The monkeys and the trees were probably bored of you perceiving them as Other for 4 days.

What you might not realize is nothing quite says "otherness exists" like carting around an Absolute, certain knowing of the existence of unique, discrete, experiencing/perceiving entities.

The "absence of otherness" pointer has been horribly mangled beyond recognition by several on ST. It's been put forth as a strange sort of reification of an existent entity who possesses personal consciousness and as such, exists as a limited entity with a limited window of perception, while simultaneously affirming that existent, separate entity to not actually be separate, simply by virtue of being "an extension" of Source..thus, connected to/unified with Source.

That version of "no otherness" is actually invoking/affirming "otherness"!

There is "no other" points to Awareness as ground, as singular and anything that appears, be it multiple people, objects, thoughts, feelings/sensations, etc, arises within it, dependent upon it. That which appears does not "become" abiding or "consciously aware/perceiving/experiencing" by virtue of arising within that ground, rather, it remains temporal, ephemeral and empty and devoid of it's own inherent existent. Awareness as existence, abides, always as ground to that which does not exist in it's own right. Fundamental Oneness does not equal Awareness "infusing itself as a property/quality into it's expressions," as some are insisting.

Oneness does not require the collapsing of the distinction between that which abides and that which is temporal. They are "fundamentally" One, but distinct....one abides, the other is temporal. One exists, the other is dream-stuff only.

It would be you with your views about apparent form/sentient being then, who if in the midst of monkeys for 4 days would have been guilty of perceiving them as "other."