|
Post by Figgles on Sept 10, 2017 19:03:01 GMT
When I first entered into the "other as perceiver or not," discussion, I made the point that the absence of certain knowing about that, really had no huge ramifications...that it really changed nothing in terms of how life is lived. I still after all engaged with 'the appearance' of whatever was presenting, absent a sense of doubt or absent active questioning.
As the argument has unfolded though, and I've taken a deeper look at the issue, I've come to see that the absence of fixed knowledge pertaining to the conscious awareness/perceptive ability of the other, hinges upon first having the realization that I am/Consciousness, and all else that appears, arises TO that. And then from there, there's gotta be the realization that all appearances are inherently empty of Truth, and it's only when that realization, coupled with the first, abides, that all concrete, fixed certain knowing pertaining to the existence of any-thing that appears, falls away.
That absence of certain, fixed, concrete knowing actually has HUGE ramifications.
The unfolding of life becomes less rigid and less subject to concrete, fixed laws/rules/parameters.......people show up almost like magic, to fulfill a role, almost as if on cue....circumstances mold and meld accordingly.
One of the arguments against 'not knowing,' seems to be that there'd be a loss of compassion, an absence of love between self and other, but really, the opposite is true.
It becomes less about 'the object' of love and more just about the flowing of a love that knows no object. (Again E, you said something previously on this forum, very profound that was similar to this.....better though...)
If anything, absent the fixed knowing about the other, love flows unimpeded.
The seeming division/boundary between self and other is actually diminished rather than accentuated. I had an incredible example of this yesterday, as my husband and I sat in our backyard sipping wine.....watching our pets play....listening to our favorite music.
I broke down in tears at one point, as a song reminded me of a dear child-hood friend who passed recently....I started going on about how I wished I had visited her recently, as we'd planned to do, but now, had lost the chance.
In what seemed like a complete reversal of roles, my husband suddenly turned guru...turned to me smiling & told me (paraphrasing here...): "Life is living us...we're not living life. All your self berating thoughts about 'woulda, shoulda, coulda,' in this moment are taking you from your appreciation of the amazing relationship you did share with her, at the time you shared it. You know better than to think there was something different you should have done regarding that relationship that you did not do.....It was what it was supposed to be...the only thing it could be...what it was...what it is. Surrender to the flow of what life is, and just relax. "
In that moment, there was no boundary between me and other.....he was me, telling me what I already knew to be so....but just needed reminding about. It was very cool, 'cause I'd never heard him use the terms he used....it was all smoky out due to forest fires burning off in the distance,.....the whole thing was incredibly surreal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 18:47:33 GMT
When I first entered into the "other as perceiver or not," discussion, I made the point that the absence of certain knowing about that, really had no huge ramifications...that it really changed nothing in terms of how life is lived. I still after all engaged with 'the appearance' of whatever was presenting, absent a sense of doubt or absent active questioning. As the argument has unfolded though, and I've taken a deeper look at the issue, I've come to see that the absence of fixed knowledge pertaining to the conscious awareness/perceptive ability of the other, hinges upon first having the realization that I am/Consciousness, and all else that appears, arises TO that. And then from there, there's gotta be the realization that all appearances are inherently empty of Truth, and it's only when that realization, coupled with the first, abides, that all concrete, fixed certain knowing pertaining to the existence of any-thing that appears, falls away. That absence of certain, fixed, concrete knowing actually has HUGE ramifications. The unfolding of life becomes less rigid and less subject to concrete, fixed laws/rules/parameters.......people show up almost like magic, to fulfill a role, almost as if on cue....circumstances mold and meld accordingly. One of the arguments against 'not knowing,' seems to be that there'd be a loss of compassion, an absence of love between self and other, but really, the opposite is true. It becomes less about 'the object' of love and more just about the flowing of a love that knows no object. (Again E, you said something previously on this forum, very profound that was similar to this.....better though...) If anything, absent the fixed knowing about the other, love flows unimpeded. The seeming division/boundary between self and other is actually diminished rather than accentuated. I had an incredible example of this yesterday, as my husband and I sat in our backyard sipping wine.....watching our pets play....listening to our favorite music. I broke down in tears at one point, as a song reminded me of a dear child-hood friend who passed recently....I started going on about how I wished I had visited her recently, as we'd planned to do, but now, had lost the chance. In what seemed like a complete reversal of roles, my husband suddenly turned guru...turned to me smiling & told me (paraphrasing here...): "Life is living us...we're not living life. All your self berating thoughts about 'woulda, shoulda, coulda,' in this moment are taking you from your appreciation of the amazing relationship you did share with her, at the time you shared it. You know better than to think there was something different you should have done regarding that relationship that you did not do.....It was what it was supposed to be...the only thing it could be...what it was...what it is. Surrender to the flow of what life is, and just relax. " In that moment, there was no boundary between me and other.....he was me, telling me what I already knew to be so....but just needed reminding about. It was very cool, 'cause I'd never heard him use the terms he used....it was all smoky out due to forest fires burning off in the distance,.....the whole thing was incredibly surreal. Who are you trying to convince of unimpeded flowing love, if you don't know if there is a perceiver to percieve it?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 16, 2017 19:13:15 GMT
When I first entered into the "other as perceiver or not," discussion, I made the point that the absence of certain knowing about that, really had no huge ramifications...that it really changed nothing in terms of how life is lived. I still after all engaged with 'the appearance' of whatever was presenting, absent a sense of doubt or absent active questioning. As the argument has unfolded though, and I've taken a deeper look at the issue, I've come to see that the absence of fixed knowledge pertaining to the conscious awareness/perceptive ability of the other, hinges upon first having the realization that I am/Consciousness, and all else that appears, arises TO that. And then from there, there's gotta be the realization that all appearances are inherently empty of Truth, and it's only when that realization, coupled with the first, abides, that all concrete, fixed certain knowing pertaining to the existence of any-thing that appears, falls away. That absence of certain, fixed, concrete knowing actually has HUGE ramifications. The unfolding of life becomes less rigid and less subject to concrete, fixed laws/rules/parameters.......people show up almost like magic, to fulfill a role, almost as if on cue....circumstances mold and meld accordingly. One of the arguments against 'not knowing,' seems to be that there'd be a loss of compassion, an absence of love between self and other, but really, the opposite is true. It becomes less about 'the object' of love and more just about the flowing of a love that knows no object. (Again E, you said something previously on this forum, very profound that was similar to this.....better though...) If anything, absent the fixed knowing about the other, love flows unimpeded. The seeming division/boundary between self and other is actually diminished rather than accentuated. I had an incredible example of this yesterday, as my husband and I sat in our backyard sipping wine.....watching our pets play....listening to our favorite music. I broke down in tears at one point, as a song reminded me of a dear child-hood friend who passed recently....I started going on about how I wished I had visited her recently, as we'd planned to do, but now, had lost the chance. In what seemed like a complete reversal of roles, my husband suddenly turned guru...turned to me smiling & told me (paraphrasing here...): "Life is living us...we're not living life. All your self berating thoughts about 'woulda, shoulda, coulda,' in this moment are taking you from your appreciation of the amazing relationship you did share with her, at the time you shared it. You know better than to think there was something different you should have done regarding that relationship that you did not do.....It was what it was supposed to be...the only thing it could be...what it was...what it is. Surrender to the flow of what life is, and just relax. " In that moment, there was no boundary between me and other.....he was me, telling me what I already knew to be so....but just needed reminding about. It was very cool, 'cause I'd never heard him use the terms he used....it was all smoky out due to forest fires burning off in the distance,.....the whole thing was incredibly surreal. Who are you trying to convince of unimpeded flowing love, if you don't know if there is a perceiver to percieve it? The others, whom I am experiencing. They sure do look to be perceivers. Don't know for certain though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 21:30:52 GMT
Who are you trying to convince of unimpeded flowing love, if you don't know if there is a perceiver to percieve it? The others, whom I am experiencing. They sure do look to be perceivers. Don't know for certain though. Others appearing sentient, doesn't mean the empty zombie appearances 'are' sentient, isn't it? So why would I try to convince you of that? Hehe
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 16, 2017 22:38:50 GMT
The others, whom I am experiencing. They sure do look to be perceivers. Don't know for certain though. Others appearing sentient, doesn't mean the empty zombie appearances 'are' sentient, isn't it? So why would I try to convince you of that? Hehe To deny the unfolding experience, as it's presenting, would mean introducing a 'doer/intermediary.' If there's an enjoyable experience happening, of a perfectly good discussion happening with another, why thwart that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 23:41:54 GMT
Others appearing sentient, doesn't mean the empty zombie appearances 'are' sentient, isn't it? So why would I try to convince you of that? Hehe To deny the unfolding experience, as it's presenting, would mean introducing a 'doer/intermediary.' If there's an enjoyable experience happening, of a perfectly good discussion happening with another, why thwart that? No one is saying I can't have an enjoyable experience with my zombies... But like what Andrew said, I might as well be talking to a paper clip. Hehe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 3:45:37 GMT
When I first entered into the "other as perceiver or not," discussion, I made the point that the absence of certain knowing about that, really had no huge ramifications...that it really changed nothing in terms of how life is lived. I still after all engaged with 'the appearance' of whatever was presenting, absent a sense of doubt or absent active questioning. As the argument has unfolded though, and I've taken a deeper look at the issue, I've come to see that the absence of fixed knowledge pertaining to the conscious awareness/perceptive ability of the other, hinges upon first having the realization that I am/Consciousness, and all else that appears, arises TO that. And then from there, there's gotta be the realization that all appearances are inherently empty of Truth, and it's only when that realization, coupled with the first, abides, that all concrete, fixed certain knowing pertaining to the existence of any-thing that appears, falls away. That absence of certain, fixed, concrete knowing actually has HUGE ramifications. The unfolding of life becomes less rigid and less subject to concrete, fixed laws/rules/parameters.......people show up almost like magic, to fulfill a role, almost as if on cue....circumstances mold and meld accordingly. One of the arguments against 'not knowing,' seems to be that there'd be a loss of compassion, an absence of love between self and other, but really, the opposite is true. It becomes less about 'the object' of love and more just about the flowing of a love that knows no object. (Again E, you said something previously on this forum, very profound that was similar to this.....better though...) If anything, absent the fixed knowing about the other, love flows unimpeded. The seeming division/boundary between self and other is actually diminished rather than accentuated. I had an incredible example of this yesterday, as my husband and I sat in our backyard sipping wine.....watching our pets play....listening to our favorite music. I broke down in tears at one point, as a song reminded me of a dear child-hood friend who passed recently....I started going on about how I wished I had visited her recently, as we'd planned to do, but now, had lost the chance. In what seemed like a complete reversal of roles, my husband suddenly turned guru...turned to me smiling & told me (paraphrasing here...): "Life is living us...we're not living life. All your self berating thoughts about 'woulda, shoulda, coulda,' in this moment are taking you from your appreciation of the amazing relationship you did share with her, at the time you shared it. You know better than to think there was something different you should have done regarding that relationship that you did not do.....It was what it was supposed to be...the only thing it could be...what it was...what it is. Surrender to the flow of what life is, and just relax. " In that moment, there was no boundary between me and other.....he was me, telling me what I already knew to be so....but just needed reminding about. It was very cool, 'cause I'd never heard him use the terms he used....it was all smoky out due to forest fires burning off in the distance,.....the whole thing was incredibly surreal. Who are you trying to convince of unimpeded flowing love, if you don't know if there is a perceiver to percieve it? That would be the unconditional love that is not attached to an object and therefore doesn't "belong" to a perceiver. I thought she made that very clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 14:39:35 GMT
Who are you trying to convince of unimpeded flowing love, if you don't know if there is a perceiver to percieve it? That would be the unconditional love that is not attached to an object and therefore doesn't "belong" to a perceiver. I thought she made that very clear. You think she's trying to convince unconditional love rather than the appearance of others? Like it's sentient or something? That's not clarity that's conceptual folly. Hehe
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 17, 2017 19:25:50 GMT
To deny the unfolding experience, as it's presenting, would mean introducing a 'doer/intermediary.' If there's an enjoyable experience happening, of a perfectly good discussion happening with another, why thwart that? No one is saying I can't have an enjoyable experience with my zombies... But like what Andrew said, I might as well be talking to a paper clip. Hehe Neither a zombie nor a paper clip is likely to give you a blow job when you tell them you're horny.....an appearing person, just might though. (my apologies for being crass, but I figured it might help get my point across ...and I'm assuming you are male, if not, make the appropriate adjustment to my post )
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 17, 2017 19:26:21 GMT
Who are you trying to convince of unimpeded flowing love, if you don't know if there is a perceiver to percieve it? That would be the unconditional love that is not attached to an object and therefore doesn't "belong" to a perceiver. I thought she made that very clear. Thank you Satch.
|
|