Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 31, 2018 2:41:35 GMT
Good freakin' Lord.  Andy gets much worse when he's given a little encouragement.  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 31, 2018 3:08:25 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. Sounds right to me. A CC experience was had and an "obvious" conclusion was drawn. It's this concluding that we've been warning peeps about with regard to the CC experience. The corresponding realization does not result in any such conclusions. Because it is a conclusion about the experiential realm, there are some questions that can be asked about the idea of THIS looking through the eyes of every living thing. There are living things that don't have eyes, or even senses as we would define them by human standards, and even what qualifies as alive comes under question in that context. The discussion of such questions would be never ending and speculative, making the statement arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 4:04:14 GMT
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.  Yes... Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 4:06:11 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.  Hell yeah....Those freakin' idjits. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 4:16:10 GMT
Sounds right to me. A CC experience was had and an "obvious" conclusion was drawn. Yup. Plain and simply. That's it. Yes...ever so important to see is the distinction between 'realization' vs. 'conclusion.'....seems to me this was at one time, something that got talked about a lot on ST...(and fwiw, agreed upon, even stressed, argued for, by the folks that are now insisting that conclusions derived of/from CC experiences are equal to realizations that have one seeing through previously held to ideas/beliefs). yes. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 15:23:09 GMT
Andrew, it's important to see that you are in quite a different position in terms of your argument than Reefs and ZD, for the express reason that unlike them, you do not agree that you know that you exist.
This is one of the reasons why I find it so incredibly disingenuous how Reefs is banding together with you to argue against the absence of knowledge pertaining to that which appears....he clearly DOES acknowledge that he exists, the two of you argued quite vehemently over that one in fact, for quite a long period of time, in the past.
In the past, he went as far to say that The only thing one can be certain of, is that he exists.' Thus, Your entire ontology is worlds apart from either ZD's or Reefs. They know I am/existence...whereas you see it as just another appearance. What this means is that you have not even reached the modicum of clarity necessary to know Being as the foundation to all that arises. You've lumped it in with other stuff that appears vs. seeing that Being/I am existence, is what all the other stuff arises/appears within. (The world is in you).
Reefs? If you happen to be reading along, would love to hear an explanation of how/why this changed.....did your CC experience add one more knowing to that one and only thing you said could be known for certain? If so, that's a pretty big deal...to go from seeing that I am/existence is all you can be certain of, to possessing certainty about that which appears to I am/existence.....a monumental shift in seeing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 15:34:15 GMT
Or maybe he just doesn't want to get permanently banned from the ST forum.  Hey...dude...you're full out aligning with someone who says he does not know I am/existence. (Andrew) E is NOT arguing for separation. He acknowledges that he exists...like you used to say, he says that's a certainty. The realization that all is One, all is consciousness does not equal a subsequent knowing that every appearing object being consciously self aware. What you've done is wrongly assumed that 'being OF consciousness' necessarily equals 'being consciously self aware'. You've assigned attribute to that which has none and then made a couple of wrong turns from there to arrive at your faulty conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 15:44:16 GMT
 Seriously? Could a guy who writes the kind of poetry he writes be seeing/experiencing a two-dimensional, flat world? Have you read where he speaks of "God tears"...as i recall, one time as he silently observed a tree...? I'm pretty sure E sees and experiences and thus, engages a world of intense aliveness and vibrancy, just as you yourself do ZD....the difference is, he also clearly sees that beyond that appearance/experience of vibrancy, he knows nothing. Even the appearance of vibrancy/aliveness, is 'an empty appearance,' for which he has no knowledge of, beyond that it appears. It's enough for him that a vibrant world appears...he fully engages that appearance, but all absent knowledge beyond that. (E I hope I haven't misrepresented you here...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 16:01:45 GMT
It gets very awkward when the person you're arguing with, the one who is presenting an astonishingly deluded view, is a trigger happy, control freak moderator. While a CC may arise in tandem with or give way to a realization, the CC itself never ceases to be an arising in experience...thus, it's content never becomes Truthy. Thus, there is really no important distinction at all between a cc experience and a realization......IF a CC gives rise to realization, cool, but the content itself has to be let go of as that aspect can never be anything more than minding/experiential. What you are suggesting is that the seeing that appearances are empty, somehow goes away to make room for your seeing that appearances are Truthy. That's just not so. THAT right there, if it happens, is a perfect example of being clear and then falling back into delusion. And it's precisely because that CAN and does happen, that it's so important to see the pitfalls of woo-woo/CC experiences. They are sticky as hell.....major traps along the pathless/path to wakefulness/clarity. Actually, along with Gopal, I was one of the first to assert that you just don't know when it comes to appearing people. E stayed silent on the matter for quite a while. How about Andrew's position on "Do you exist"? Remember that one? How 'bout yours? (The one thing you can be certain of.....  ) remember that? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 16:17:51 GMT
I am/existence is not 'an image', nor a concept, nor an appearance. I can't believe Reefs keeps giving you a pass on this one.  Existence is the one thing you CAN be certain of....if one is clear, it will be seen that all that arises in experience arises within I am/existence/Being. Being (not as a thing/concept/idea), but rather, visceral, Being/existence itself, can be seen to be at the foundation to all else that arises. It's an important distinction to see and one that does not in any way, shape or form, imply actual 'separation.' Please read that as many times as you need to...it's a hugely important point). A "fundamental disparity" would equal "actual separation". That is NOT what's being asserted. The disparity/distinction is between that which is foundational to that which appears and that which appears. Do you have any reference at all for " The world arises within you"? yes, because I am is known with visceral, immediate certainty, but 'you' are an appearance arises to/within that. Non-duality collapses the 'fundamental' disparity/separation. No one is saying that I am/existence is "separate from" that which arises in appearance. When it is said that the world arises within Being....there is a distinction being made between the arising/appearing world, and Being...and yet, that does not at all mean that the world and Being are fundamentally separate. You honestly don't now what you're talking about Andrew. To you, 'existence, being' are just words. Do you exist? The knowing of existence is visceral, direct, immediate. Once seen, there is no arguing with it. You know it for certain. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4965/consciousness-nature-appearances?page=64#ixzz5BLKQqkmf |
|
) remember that?