|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 16:18:32 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 know 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 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 16:29:22 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...) Yeah, I agree. I enjoy reading zd's posts, but sometimes the responses do have a 'steeped in knowledge' flavor to them. 'Steeped in knowledge' isn't spontaneity. I fall prey to 'steeped in knowledge', too. Maybe I should simply rely more on what pops up spontaneously. Or as Blake labeled it- the state of organized innocence.  What a perceptive remark rowan. I also felt that with many of zd's posts. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 16:31:56 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...) Yeah, I agree. I enjoy reading zd's posts, but sometimes the responses do have a 'steeped in knowledge' flavor to them. 'Steeped in knowledge' isn't spontaneity. I fall prey to 'steeped in knowledge', too. Maybe I should simply rely more on what pops up spontaneously. Or as Blake labeled it- the state of organized innocence. Yes, I have a similar experience with ZD's posts. AT times, they can take my breath away, but every now and again, he reveals that he is conflating experience with Truth. Where this first became evident to me was when he spoke about having a whole bunch of existential questions that as he came into clarity, he received pat, fixed answers to. As I see it, he did not go far enough. There's a point where all material answers to existential questions, have to be seen through.....have to also be seen as empty and devoid of Truth, regardless of (it could even actually be said, BECAUSE of) how satisfying they are to mind. True clarity means a fundamental absence of any moorings (material knowledge) at all, other than the knowledge of I am/existence itself....which is not material knowledge. And it's so important to see that That knowing/seeing is beyond the satisfaction of mind, beyond the comfort that comes from feeling that you have answers....it's hard though for folks to let go of that relative satisfaction/comfort because, absent true clarity, it seems like the best thing they have...or could ever have. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 16:43:45 GMT
Can you see ZD, that there is an important difference between saying 'the entire universe is vibrant and alive' vs. saying 'each and every appearing thing that arises to/within Being, is known for certain to be consciously self-aware, experiencing, seeing out of the appearing eyes, feeling with the appearing fingers, hearing with the apparent ears...?
And even more importantly, can you see that 'fundamental' disparity would equal 'separation' and that no one is asserting that?
A distinction does not equal separation. To see that the world arises 'within' Being, IS to make a distinction, but in no way asserts 'separation.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 16:48:55 GMT
Like what?  You are reading something in that is just not there. I am/existence is not a personal knowing. The problem here Andrew, is that YOU have not yet identified/seen 'Being/existence.' You think it's an idea/concept. It's not. It is known by virtue of existence itself. (not an idea of existence, rather, immediate, visceral, this, right here right now, I am). There is no "person" in I am...you keep assuming there is because YOU equate person-hood with "I/me." What you then do, is superimpose your own knowledge/seeing upon those of us who are saying that the only thing you can know for certain is I am/existence. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4965/consciousness-nature-appearances?page=64#ixzz5BLUjwyQY |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 16:53:56 GMT
Yes. All of us here who are asserting that there's an absence of knowledge pertaining to appearing people full out admit that the question itself, IS indeed, misconceived if in fact one has seen the inherent emptiness of all appearance.
Plain and simply, you don't know anything about that which appears beyond THAT it appears (and it is not separate), and that itself ends the questioning. Why would you keep lowering a bucket into a well that you know to be empty?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 16:57:19 GMT
Big thumbs up?  Big contradiction. YOU are the one saying that you DO have an answer. YOU say that you DO in fact know about an appearance beyond that it appears. SomeNothing is speaking there of seeing that the 'root' of any answer to the question, would have be founded in mind/delusion. You are saying something very different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 17:04:08 GMT
Well said. Finally, some sanity.  yes. Exactly . Perfectly put. (Whoah...yet another bout of the sweet stuff!! ) |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 17:11:12 GMT
Yes, I have a similar experience with ZD's posts. AT times, they can take my breath away, but every now and again, he reveals that he is conflating experience with Truth. Where this first became evident to me was when he spoke about having a whole bunch of existential questions that as he came into clarity, he received pat, fixed answers to. As I see it, he did not go far enough. There's a point where all material answers to existential questions, have to be seen through.....have to also be seen as empty and devoid of Truth, regardless of (it could even actually be said, BECAUSE of) how satisfying they are to mind. True clarity means a fundamental absence of any moorings (material knowledge) at all, other than the knowledge of I am/existence itself....which is not material knowledge. And it's so important to see that That knowing/seeing is beyond the satisfaction of mind, beyond the comfort that comes from feeling that you have answers....it's hard though for folks to let go of that relative satisfaction/comfort because, absent true clarity, it seems like the best thing they have...or could ever have. This is an important post, figs. It steers us away from the trap of- today’s enlightenment becoming tomorrow’s mistake. Very nicely shared. Thank you. Thanks Rowan. Very nicely stated, yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 31, 2018 19:56:37 GMT
What? In the past you argued that Existence is also an appearance. This is a great example of that dishonesty/disingenuousness I spoke of earlier. You will flip flop all over the place depending who you are talking to. |
|
Big contradiction.