|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 11, 2018 19:18:28 GMT
What?? Do you even know the meaning of that word?  You used to use it over and over a ways back and even then, seemed to me you were mis-using the term. Grab a dictionary. Reification is making something real, bringing something into being, or making something concrete. Reification may also refer to: Reification (Gestalt psychology), the perception of an object as having more spatial information than is present. Reification - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReificationIf anything then, YOU actually 'reify' the appearing person when you insist that you know he is experiencing. You attribute 'being' directly to him, based upon what you see. Reify: Make something more concrete or real. Consciousness is not knowable in the way that we could describe it's nature by attributing a quality to it. Lord knows all sorts of folks try...but ultimately, that which gives rise to and permeates all that is, is beyond description, beyond attribute, even beyond having an essential nature...after all, we could say it IS the essential nature of all that arises all that appears. Which does not mean that every appearing object IS consciously self aware. It all collapses to 'consciousness', but that's just a term that's being used to denote that which is essentially, uncapturable with words/concepts. Being aware arises of/from awareness, but that does not mean that all individuated appearing, arising facets within awareness, are consciously self aware. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 11, 2018 19:51:25 GMT
Speaking of mountains....I can't even say how many times when I described 'full circle', 3rd mountain, re-engagement with all 'face value,' experiential content, I had folks like you and Reefs jump in to point out that one never 'goes back' to buying into the surface appearance of things, as per first mountain position.
And I always replied that at full circle, it might appear as though one is once again buying into the surface appearance of things, just like he was in first mountain position, but that rest assured, it is now with a new knowing, a new awareness that abides alongside his engagement with face value appearance.
Interestingly, you now seem to be suggesting that very thing; Turning back around to head back to 1st mountain, to buy into the appearance of things...to somehow, un-see the emptiness you previously saw.
"Not knowing" is not baggage that gets carted around as a sort of some-thing that has substance. Rather, it's just the absence of fixed, certain knowledge. If there's any kind of presence in that wake of that absence, it is the presence of awareness/knowing of possibility. An openness.
It does not involve a state of questioning at all. Once you've seen the entire realm of the material as empty, you simply stop looking for answers there. When you see that something, regardless of how hard you squeeze it, is not gonna cough up truth, you cease trying to milk it for truth and instead, just engage with the appearance, as it appears. But you never completely lose sight of the emptiness....it's a truth that supercedes all engagement with the relative.
Once seen, you cannot 'turn off' the seeing of emptiness.... but that's not problematic in any way...the awareness of emptiness simply 'abides alongside' the face value engagement with the appearance.
As has been said many times, nothing really changes in terms of basic engagement....however, there are important ramifications beneath the surface appearance of things when the seeing of emptiness abides alongside all engagement with the material world....love flows unimpeded....love without an object becomes possible.
So, as you see it, does the absence of knowing that accompanies the seeing that ALL experiential content, all arising appearances, is inherently empty, also come to an end at some point? If not, why not? Why would you have knowing returning where one appearance is concerned, (a person/animal) but not with others? Why does it only apply to the appearance of aliveness/sentience?
You seem to be singling out one appearance from all the others to say; Knowledge about this particular one thing, returns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 11, 2018 19:57:20 GMT
Why, because it's neither good nor bad?  Yes. Ask questions to yourself. The mind hates that. The snow is receding, and it's almost Thur'sday. Yippee!!!  Hmmm...............................I wonder if Rowan has golf on his mind.....? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 11, 2018 20:19:57 GMT
Your goal is to try to convince yourself that you DO know, plain and simply because the idea that you might not, terrifies you.
Once the inherent emptiness of all experience has been seen, it's hard to imagine how it might be unseen. And really, that's what you and Reefs and particularly Laffy in his suggestion that the 'not knowing' (that i think he is saying pertains specifically to people), somehow 'goes away' at some point, post seeing the inherent emptiness.
Undoubtedly the 'questioning' goes away, but that's not because a pat answer was arrived at, it's because the question was seen to be misconceived. If it's clearly seen that the well is dry, we don't keep lowering down the bucket in an effort to get water.
E is not making a mistake. You have simply not yet seen the inherent emptiness of all that appears. You're missing a vital bit of information and thus, where you are looking from is a radically different vantage point from where E is looking from. That's like telling the dude on the top of the mountain who says he can see valley's and lake's from where he stands that he's making a mistake, 'cause from your own position of standing at the base of the mountain, all you can see is trees surrounding you.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 12, 2018 0:21:02 GMT
I haven't said it out loud before, mostly because I'm unqualified to talk about woo-woo mind states, but my most favorable view is that CC is a mind state expression of realization that for whatever reason is not happening directly and is put into mind's framework for expression. Fine so far, but it lends itself to interpretation, like for example experiencing a transcendent aliveness and then taking that literally and concluding all physical stuff is alive. Yeah, I totally agree, you've described that very well, "interpretation" is precisely what we're seeing with this whole "A CC experience told me that the appearing person is experiencing," crap. .... and I said, I have had all sorts of woo-woo mind state, CC mind blowing experiences. That said, I don't think one has to have had a mind blowing CC experience, or any CC experience at all to clearly see that a very special experience that occurs in tandem with a realization, is very likely to result in a muddying of that realization, due to the very natural tendency of cling to special experiences and their content...interpretations included. When that Buddha pops up in the middle of road in a moment that would be otherwise be absent ideation, beat that f-er to a pulp. (jk-ing...exagerrating, but you get my drift....  ) Obliterate him!!  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 12, 2018 0:24:47 GMT
If there's an experiential aspect to it that can be talked about after, described, you can bet your sweet patootie there is. Yes, the 'me' is having a 'no-me' experience. (I'm guessing Tenka might agree with that) |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 12, 2018 1:12:59 GMT
Hmmm...............................I wonder if Rowan has golf on his mind.....? I just leave the body alone. It does what it's here to do. ....grabs golf bag.....adds balls..tees...clean towel........puts on hot pink golf shirt and purple plaid pants...... (My hubby is starting to 'broaden his horizons' with some funky colors re: his golf outfits, so some assumptions made there... ) |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 12, 2018 1:13:40 GMT
If there's an experiential aspect to it that can be talked about after, described, you can bet your sweet patootie there is. Yes, the 'me' is having a 'no-me' experience. (I'm guessing Tenka might agree with that) Yeah...exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 12, 2018 16:03:04 GMT
For sure. If forced to make a choice between the two, of course feeling at home with what is is more important.
I don't know of one person here or on ST who is saying that 'the intellect' can get, or 'got' them there. The absence of CC experiences does not equal the presence of intellect....does it? Truth realization does not involve a woo-woo type experience nor does it involve intellect.
So when you say 'awesome' things, does that mean 'more awesome' than what a so called ordinary moment of presence offers up? I've had my own share of CC experiences.... 'mind blowing' woo-woo experiences, and yet in the end, I still come back to seeing that every singular present moment of experience has that seed of 'awesome-ness' within it....that while the wild woo-woo, unimaginable stuff is cool and all, it's not necessary at all in terms of feeling wholly at home with 'what is.'
I don't think one has to have a special mind-blowing experience to have that reference. Everyday life, seen from a particular vantage point, can reveal what's being pointed to. Simply getting in touch with "Being" is enough, really.
Yes, In terms of Being free, CC experiences are irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 12, 2018 16:09:41 GMT
Precisely. Very well put.
|
|
You used to use it over and over a ways back and even then, seemed to me you were mis-using the term. Grab a dictionary. 
But the position of not knowing if other people are perceivers is one that involves a state of questioning, whether the questioner is conscious of that. Or not.
) 