SR & CC anyone?

Actually the first word that came to mind started with a "C"...but I thought better of it...figured Gopal might reprimand me. (the perils of partnerships...) I dunno, Do you think the C word is in his vocab? ..Gopal??

When it comes to those here and on ST who disagree about not knowing if the appearing person is consciously self aware/experiencing, there are several different arguments in play;

ZD and Reefs both (now) insist that there is a particular "cosmic, mind blowing, unity experience" that leaves them knowing material information 'about' every appearing thing, beyond that it appears...that leaves them knowing for certain that each appearance is alive, conscious and self aware. They have yet to explain whether or not there is any difference between, say, the 'self awareness' of a rock or a piece of poop, vs. the self awareness of an appearing scholar, and I won't hold my breath because they first might have to get together over coffee to hash out a consensus on that before they choose to share. There's some huge ass covering happening here.

seems to me what they've done, is to see the general 'energetic, vibrancy' that apparently blankets the totality of 'this,' to extrapolate that to mean that they do in fact possess certain knowledge that every appearing object is 'conscious, alive, self aware.'

Reefs (who earlier insisted that the only one thing one could be certain of was 'I exist') started out arguing that he knew appearing people were conscious, self aware, by virtue of realizing that all is Consciousness (which does not work , because all being consciousenss does not necessarily equal all being 'conscious')...but then later, he morphed his argument in favor of a very special, super duper experience that had him knowing with certainty that each and every appearing thing, experienced and was self aware and conscious.

Then we have Andrew; It's tough to pin down exactly where he stands because his argument has morphed all the way through. First he insisted that 'of course you know' and that knowing is indicated by virtue of the fact that you treat appearing people as if they are experiencing. (actually, Reefs went here for a bit too..) Then he morphed into the special experience for a bit...then into the whole "there are no others" bit, then to the "If all is consciousness, then every appearing thing has to, by virtue of that, BE conscious).....then back again to "there are no others." (There were a few others arguments rolled in, none of which made much sense)....now he's arguing that to even suggest that there could be individual viewpoints is to also suggest that there could be actual separation. Which means, He's the one conflating individuation with separation.

Then we have Laughter, who says that he at one time was absent knowing, but that went away and now he does know. But, he won't explain what that knowledge is founded upon or how he reconciles seeing the emptiness of appearances with that knowledge. He's alluded to the fact that looking into the eyes of another is so very compelling and moving, that...how could you not know, kinda of thing, but to be fair, he hasn't really elaborated.

Regardless of specific argument, I say that what we have in each of these cases are folks who despite the fact that they may have actually had some real realizations, have turned backwards from them, to find reasons to argue for apparent knowledge that brings them a great degree of pleasure and comfort. It's such a great example of how mind will do almost anything to hang onto an idea that feels good, particularly in the face of a counter one that makes them bad.

What they've yet to see, is that there is no downside to the loss/seeing through of knowledge in this case. All seeing through of knowledge is a step in the direction of freedom.