Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 29, 2018 23:19:53 GMT
I wonder if you see all absence of certain knowledge, pertaining to ALL arising appearance then as 'an intellectual conclusion'?  And if not, why have you specifically singled out 'appearing people'? To see that the only thing I can be certain about is "I am/existence" is not an intellectual conclusion. Just ask Reefs..he used to talk about that a lot...remember, back when he used to hound you to try to get you to answer the question "Do you exist"?  How so? Realizing Oneness does not all of a sudden mean that certainty enters in regarding stuff that appears. Do you recall saying that 'all you can be certain of is "I exist"?' You were pretty adamant about it. When did that change? Why did it change? You were heading in the right direction and then you turned on your heels and started heading back to peep-land. And all because of a CC experience? See...just goes to show how problematic those things can really be. Sticky as hell, they are. A dude can be half-way out of the quick-sand and he has one of those and then he's right back down under again, fast asleep, dreaming he's awake. "MY enemy's enemy is my friend."  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 30, 2018 4:16:38 GMT
I wonder if you see all absence of certain knowledge, pertaining to ALL arising appearance then as 'an intellectual conclusion'? And if not, why have you specifically singled out 'appearing people'? To see that the only thing I can be certain about is "I am/existence" is not an intellectual conclusion. Just ask Reefs..he used to talk about that a lot...remember, back when he used to hound you to try to get you to answer the question "Do you exist"? How so? Realizing Oneness does not all of a sudden mean that certainty enters in regarding stuff that appears. Do you recall saying that 'all you can be certain of is "I exist"?' You were pretty adamant about it. When did that change? Why did it change? You were heading in the right direction and then you turned on your heels and started heading back to peep-land. And all because of a CC experience? See...just goes to show how problematic those things can really be. Sticky as hell, they are. A dude can be half-way out of the quick-sand and he has one of those and then he's right back down under again, fast asleep, dreaming he's awake. "MY enemy's enemy is my friend." Hell yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 30, 2018 15:49:28 GMT
Aaaargh.....you guys are still not getting it.  And I must say, I am surprised that SomeNothing isn't. Andrew, not so much as I don't think he's actually realized Self at all. No one is insisting that 'otherness' is the case. Individuated experience, view point, could be the case, without actual separation/otherness. Potential Multiple view points does not equal fundamental 'otherness.' If all is fundamentally One, then regardless of what appears, what arises in experience, there is no 'actual' otherness. How could there be? But that says nothing at all about individuated/unique viewpoints. The fact that it has been realized that there is no other, that all is Self, does not mean that individuation ceases to be seen. The appearance of Delineation, individuation, is NOT the equivalent of separation. What you guys are asserting would only be appropriate, IF we were asserting that it cannot be known if the appearing other is fundamentally, actually 'other than' Self. That's not happening. All can fundamentally be One, AND individuation, delineation can co-abide that, no problem...no conflict. So, to use the argument that there is no other (It's ALL Self) to counter the assertion that nothing is known about appearances other than that they appear to/within Being, doesn't work. Yes, indeed, the rock appearing at my feet is not 'other than' or separate from that which I am, but that doesn't translate into my knowing that there is experiencing happening there...a view point. All I know about the appearing rock is that it is appearing and that it is noneother than Self. That it is Self, does not automatically give it the attribute of 'being consciously self aware.' (I think this is the specific fallacy in play here) It's downright baffling to me how some folks are taking that Truth (All is Self), to say therefore, they know stuff about appearances, beyond that they appear. Unique, individuated, delineated, does not equal 'separate' or 'other than.' If this isn't seen, we get brown bears. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 30, 2018 16:33:29 GMT
Aaaargh.....you guys are still not getting it. And I must say, I am surprised that SomeNothing isn't. Andrew, not so much as I don't think he's actually realized Self at all. No one is insisting that 'otherness' is the case. Individuated experience, view point, could be the case, without actual separation/otherness. Potential Multiple view points does not equal fundamental 'otherness.' If all is fundamentally One, then regardless of what appears, what arises in experience, there is no 'actual' otherness. How could there be? But that says nothing at all about individuated/unique viewpoints. The fact that it has been realized that there is no other, that all is Self, does not mean that individuation ceases to be seen. The appearance of Delineation, individuation, is NOT the equivalent of separation. What you guys are asserting would only be appropriate, IF we were asserting that it cannot be known if the appearing other is fundamentally, actually 'other than' Self. That's not happening. All can fundamentally be One, AND individuation, delineation can co-abide that, no problem...no conflict. So, to use the argument that there is no other (It's ALL Self) to counter the assertion that nothing is known about appearances other than that they appear to/within Being, doesn't work. Yes, indeed, the rock appearing at my feet is not 'other than' or separate from that which I am, but that doesn't translate into my knowing that there is experiencing happening there...a view point. All I know about the appearing rock is that it is appearing and that it is noneother than Self. That it is Self, does not automatically give it the attribute of 'being consciously self aware.' (I think this is the specific fallacy in play here) It's downright baffling to me how some folks are taking that Truth (All is Self), to say therefore, they know stuff about appearances, beyond that they appear. Unique, individuated, delineated, does not equal 'separate' or 'other than.' If this isn't seen, we get brown bears. Frustrating, ain't it? I did the 'Arrrg!' thingy too when I first read it. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 30, 2018 16:46:58 GMT
Aaaargh.....you guys are still not getting it. And I must say, I am surprised that SomeNothing isn't. Andrew, not so much as I don't think he's actually realized Self at all. No one is insisting that 'otherness' is the case. Individuated experience, view point, could be the case, without actual separation/otherness. Potential Multiple view points does not equal fundamental 'otherness.' If all is fundamentally One, then regardless of what appears, what arises in experience, there is no 'actual' otherness. How could there be? But that says nothing at all about individuated/unique viewpoints. The fact that it has been realized that there is no other, that all is Self, does not mean that individuation ceases to be seen. The appearance of Delineation, individuation, is NOT the equivalent of separation. What you guys are asserting would only be appropriate, IF we were asserting that it cannot be known if the appearing other is fundamentally, actually 'other than' Self. That's not happening. All can fundamentally be One, AND individuation, delineation can co-abide that, no problem...no conflict. So, to use the argument that there is no other (It's ALL Self) to counter the assertion that nothing is known about appearances other than that they appear to/within Being, doesn't work. Yes, indeed, the rock appearing at my feet is not 'other than' or separate from that which I am, but that doesn't translate into my knowing that there is experiencing happening there...a view point. All I know about the appearing rock is that it is appearing and that it is noneother than Self. That it is Self, does not automatically give it the attribute of 'being consciously self aware.' (I think this is the specific fallacy in play here) It's downright baffling to me how some folks are taking that Truth (All is Self), to say therefore, they know stuff about appearances, beyond that they appear. Unique, individuated, delineated, does not equal 'separate' or 'other than.' If this isn't seen, we get brown bears. Frustrating, ain't it? I did the 'Arrrg!' thingy too when I first read it. Particularly where Andew's concerned, Seems to me to be a classic case of:  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 30, 2018 19:00:14 GMT
Excellent post E. Very well said.
& yeah, I too see It's entirely possible that SomeNothing has not been reading here, as some of the others there clearly have, and thus, has little idea about what or who "metaphysical solipsist" was in reference to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 1:34:32 GMT
Good freakin' Lord.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 2:21:44 GMT
Like I'm pretty sure E said to you previously, unified, intelligent, lively presence, can be seen to be, right here, right now, and all absent the need for a "CC experience". Important to note though, a perceived, alive, unified, intelligent presence that can be seen as fundamental to all that arises, that pertains to all that is, is not the equivalent of knowing for certain that every object that appears is, 'consciously, self aware.' You've conflated what appears to be, what you assume to be because it appears to be so obvious, what is experienced, with 'realization.' Realization does not equal an experience that seems to be 'obvious.' Rather, realization illuminates that which is false....realization is a subtraction of knowledge not an addition. Going by appearance only, it does indeed seem to be rather obvious that what looks out of my eyes, also looks out of yours, and thus, that all eyes that "appear to be seeing" actually are seeing.... however, with clarity we see that appearing eyes, along with their apparent sight, are just appearances, thus, they may be deceptive......we cannot look to appearances to determine the Truth of the matter. You are looking to the compelling (what you call obvious) appearance of that which arises, to arrive at a conclusion that it is True. Quite frankly ZD...I am shocked to read what you have written here. If you mean what I think you do....you're still fast asleep...merely dreaming you are awake..and that too, is just what appears to me. I don't actually know if you and your apparent slumber are anything more than an apparition.  yes, There is only one 'thingless thing'...but to say that IT is aware, is to assign it quality.....in doing so, you make is a some-THING. To say that it is "Alive" and then say it is "Incomprehensible" is to make a gross contradiction. If it's incomprehensible, then your attribution of "alive", really, means nothing at all. It most certainly does not mean that you have realized that every arising appearing thing is 'consciously self aware.' "Blown off in the wind" sounds a lot like 'an absence of certain knowledge', no? Who said that "appearance" should be regarded as other than "what is"? No one has been invoking the terms 'real vs. imaginary' in this conversation. Becoming a servant for life means a humble life absent certain knowing beyond I am/existence. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 31, 2018 2:27:49 GMT
Frustrating, ain't it? I did the 'Arrrg!' thingy too when I first read it. Particularly where Andew's concerned, Seems to me to be a classic case of: And it's easily strawmanned when he knows neither of us can respond directly to him to correct him.  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 31, 2018 2:36:29 GMT
Excellent post E. Very well said. & yeah, I too see It's entirely possible that SomeNothing has not been reading here, as some of the others there clearly have, and thus, has little idea about what or who "metaphysical solipsist" was in reference to. I think that was shown to be the case in subsequent posts, and given nothing more than Andy's and Reefs' characterization of the MS giraffe, I likely would have responded similarly and given those damn metaphysical solipsists a piece of my mind.  |
|
And I must say, I am surprised that SomeNothing isn't. Andrew, not so much as I don't think he's actually realized Self at all.
