|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:22:00 GMT -5
You are still advocating the truth of other view point still exist, but What I am trying to tell you is, this you experiences itself from multiple view point(individual) or not can't be known. I agree with you that there is only you, but whether it has multiple view point or not can't be known, because other individual is also appearance, so how else can we know whether those individual are also perceivers like us? It seems you don't actually understand what 'The Self is all there is' or 'There is only you' means. Just use your logic, you are the Self, the Self is all there is, then what does that tell you about the nature of what you call 'others'? Should be a total no-brainer. Ah, this is interesting; So you are saying that because "Self is all there is," meaning there is only "You," that this logically expounds to knowing that others who appear are more than mere figments/appearances..that they have individuated consciousness? As I see it, seeing 'self is all there is' renders everything appearing in experience as fundamentally the 'same'...but beyond that, to say anything about those appearances, is to enter into the realm of assignation of quality...which requires judgment/discernment/knowledge. We must move from that fundamental/absolute context then, in assigning qualities or 'nature' to those appearances, and the moment we do that, we've invoked focus...what you call, 'a personal perspective.'
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:23:50 GMT -5
Yeah. You? So, if your answer is yes, in that prior to any concepts "looking", what have you been able to know? My true nature and your true nature.I don't have a definition for anything, but what do you mean by prior to personal? Prior to minding. If you really want a definition, impersonal means not-personal, but what does personal mean for you? It seems you are confusing impersonal with attached or aloof like the Figster. Can you elaborate on the bolded? Is there anything to be said about that beyond "all is one"...or "all is Consciousness/Source/God"...??
|
|
|
Post by Theodore on Feb 24, 2016 13:24:14 GMT -5
It seems you don't actually understand what 'The Self is all there is' or 'There is only you' means. Just use your logic, you are the Self, the Self is all there is, then what does that tell you about the nature of what you call 'others'? Should be a total no-brainer. Ah, this is interesting; So you are saying that because "Self is all there is," meaning there is only "You," that this logically expounds to knowing that others who appear are more than mere figments/appearances..that they have individuated consciousness? As I see it, seeing 'self is all there is' renders everything appearing in experience as fundamentally the 'same'...but beyond that, to say anything about those appearances, is to enter into the realm of assignation of quality...which requires judgment/discernment/knowledge. We must move from that fundamental/absolute context then, in assigning qualities or 'nature' to those appearances, and the moment we do that, we've invoked focus...what you call, 'a personal perspective.' Will you stop transforming what I'm struggling to express in clear, concise, unavoidable sentences! What will this become? I'm being jealous!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 13:25:40 GMT -5
It seems you don't actually understand what 'The Self is all there is' or 'There is only you' means. Just use your logic, you are the Self, the Self is all there is, then what does that tell you about the nature of what you call 'others'? Should be a total no-brainer. Ah, this is interesting; So you are saying that because "Self is all there is," meaning there is only "You," that this logically expounds to knowing that others who appear are more than mere figments/appearances..that they have individuated consciousness? As I see it, seeing 'self is all there is' renders everything appearing in experience as fundamentally the 'same'...but beyond that, to say anything about those appearances, is to enter into the realm of assignation of quality...which requires judgment/discernment/knowledge. We must move from that fundamental/absolute context then, in assigning qualities or 'nature' to those appearances, and the moment we do that, we've invoked focus...what you call, 'a personal perspective.' When Laughter and Reefs say 'there is no other', that doesn't exclude other view point, that infact includes other view point, but this view point is not separate from yours, instead this single consciousness looks through all the view points, but the problem still remains, we have no way to know whether other view points exist! But this guy Reefs is showing higher level of ignorance towards what we write, he is completely not interested in what we speak, he is completely interested in talking his own idea.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:27:48 GMT -5
The absolute isn't relative to anything. It's .. well, you know .. absolute. Reminds me of Andrew who was trying to force me into admitting that there must be a relationship between the absolute and the relative, the impersonal and the personal, haha! There is or we would not be putting them together when speaking about them. They play off each other, in case you haven't noticed. WE never speak of the absolute absent an unspoken reference to relative....same with personal/impersonal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 13:29:18 GMT -5
Yes..and to be clear, I DO rez with your position on no way to know with certainty re: the figment or not business....but am still not jibing with your 'others disappear from my reality when I become clear' point. As I told you, I very much appreciate the fact that we're both on the same page regarding an ability to agree at some points, and perhaps disagree at others...and whatever happens in those dialogues, not kick each other off facebook friends list!! IN fact, that ability/realization/absence of equating differing opinions with anger, (whatever you want to call it), imo, speaks volumes about where one actually is in all of this...another real good 'litmus test' as i see it. Yeah we might disagree with people tend to go away when we reach clarity, but the topic is about whether other people who is in our perception is real or figment, I,You,Theowhy can't drift away from each other, because our support towards others is not dependent upon the people as Laughter always gives his support to Enigma and Reefs no matter what, but our support depends upon the truth in which we three agree. This truth is easily discernible If they are bit strong in logic and direct seeing. I rez with all of that, sorry for the like fest Figgles and Gopal, it's just rezzing to the max The key here is to be able to disagree in terms of truth when it is called for. I've already done that with Gopal, and if the situation arises we'll probably go at it again, and with Figgles we didn't have the pleasure yet, but you never know when. What's going here is not 3 pals covering for each other no matter what, nor a leader/follower dynamic. It's merely an allignment of three minds, and in that 'merely', in that contemporarity of it, in that absence of anything extraneous lies the beauty and the strength. The conceptual identification of yourself as a body and a mind separate from other bodies and minds, denies the possibility of a conceptual reality in which all minds and not just the ones you rez with, are in fact 'One Mind' and is shared with 'Universal Mind'. What you should notice as an attack on you, will be your need to defend your conceptual bodily/mind identification with a rez'n time and space bound self.
|
|
|
Post by Theodore on Feb 24, 2016 13:32:28 GMT -5
I rez with all of that, sorry for the like fest Figgles and Gopal, it's just rezzing to the max The key here is to be able to disagree in terms of truth when it is called for. I've already done that with Gopal, and if the situation arises we'll probably go at it again, and with Figgles we didn't have the pleasure yet, but you never know when. What's going here is not 3 pals covering for each other no matter what, nor a leader/follower dynamic. It's merely an allignment of three minds, and in that 'merely', in that contemporarity of it, in that absence of anything extraneous lies the beauty and the strength. The conceptual identification of yourself as a body and a mind separate from other bodies and minds, denies the possibility of a conceptual reality in which all minds and not just the ones you rez with, are in fact 'One Mind' and is shared with 'Universal Mind'. What you should notice as an attack on you, will be your need to defend your conceptual bodily/mind identification with a rez'n time and space bound self. So, Theo-mind resonating with Figgle-mind means separation for Source-mind? Think of it as three cheese holes alligning in diameter and height. They are all part and parcel of the same cheese block. Let me share with you a pro tip: When you see an inkling of inconsistency in 'another' you want to uncover, it's indeed a great opportunity for you to try to do so. But don't take that as a presumption, as a basis for your attack. It's easy for everyone to see your preconception, and you can't uncover anything thus. Instead, ask them questions to actually see whether your idea is actually the case. This makes your point relatable and easily understood, as well.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:32:48 GMT -5
And yet, you conclude that you can never know, and while it might seem subtle, and really, it's even TMT, the fact is, your conclusion is a form of knowing. He's just being honest. From his imaginary impersonal perspective (which is just a broader and more expansive personal perspective) that's all you can know. Also notice his total logic fail, he acknowledges that the Self is all there is and that he is the Self, and yet he can't know what's up with all those alleged others. He's very clear that he can know they are not separate from himself. So, here it does seem that you are in fact saying that you DO know that others who appear in experience ARE actually consciously aware vs just figments? And above it does seem as though Laffy is in agreement. E, if you are reading along, I'd be curious to hear your response to this...as I'm pretty sure you do agree with Gopal when he says, 'we cannot know' (re: the figment bizness).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 13:36:07 GMT -5
He's just being honest. From his imaginary impersonal perspective (which is just a broader and more expansive personal perspective) that's all you can know. Also notice his total logic fail, he acknowledges that the Self is all there is and that he is the Self, and yet he can't know what's up with all those alleged others. He's very clear that he can know they are not separate from himself. So, here it does seem that you are in fact saying that you DO know that others who appear in experience ARE actually consciously aware vs just figments? And above it does seem as though Laffy is in agreement. E, if you are reading along, I'd be curious to hear your response to this...as I'm pretty sure you do agree with Gopal when he says, 'we cannot know' (re: the figment bizness). E would agree but you are asking this question to disprove Reefs, So he wouldn't agree, he would start to talk Nonsense! Trust me this would happen tomorrow, If it doesn't happen, you can unfriend me anytime
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:38:50 GMT -5
Not so...IF such a division MUST be made for conversation sake, I am more than capable of seeing the difference...There is a point where such a difference is important, but then, that importance to differentiate, collapses, and we could either say it's all intensely personal, or all impersonal...and either would work. * facepalm * Wow...that's a pretty rude way to engage with someone who is responding to you in a perfectly civil way. I'm quite interested Reefs in hearing what you have to say on the whole issue of Impersonal vantage point.
Seems you differentiate this from merely speaking of "The Impersonal", as you use both terms, and if you conflated them to mean exactly the same thing, can't imagine why you would feel the need to add 'vantage point.' Don't all vantage points, or perspectives necessitate some degree of 'focus'? After all, a vantage point is a 'position of seeing'...right? Can you please explain what you mean by Impersonal Vantage point, and how it does not include any degree of focus?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:41:08 GMT -5
You might also note that that was almost 4 years ago?...a different conversation..... Fwiw though, I never used the words there 'just a more expansive personal vantage point.' I still maintain, that so long as we are talking about 'A' vantage point, there some kind of view involved...thus, 'expansive' or 'general' is not really so wrong. Why not just go with what I am saying now? You seem to like dredging the past alot...what's up with that? There is a perfectly good conversation happening here...I am explaining how I see things, right here, right now, as I understand the terminology in question NOW. If I remember correctly, you've claimed having come full circle way longer than just 4 years ago. So why shouldn't that quote be valid anymore? AS I see it....Ways of speaking about all of this shift, even if the realization hasn't..... deepening/further, and thus, seeing things in slightly different ways, never ends. And really, I have not so much said that the quote is invalid, but rather have just added to it, for the sake of clarity.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:46:54 GMT -5
Yes, it seems that way to you, because you're taking the term literally, and apparently have no experiential reference for where it's pointing. Zackly. She's still confusing impersonal with the dictionary meaning, i.e. detached, aloof, indifferent, remote, dispassionate, cold-hearted, sterile (remember those words?)... ..No Reefs...not how I regard the term "Impersonal" in the conversation we're now having, at all. I think though, that some folks DO conflate SR with becoming devoid of such things as individuated, human love, experiences of choosing, intending and the like. When I made those references to how i saw you, that was what was behind it...my sense that you had taken pointers to that which we call "Impersonal" and actually embodied your conceptualization of them, in an effort to align with what you 'thought' one who is SR, should look and behave like.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:49:55 GMT -5
Can there be any 'perspective' or 'vantage point' sans some degree of focus? Impersonal vantage point absent any and all focus ...a bit of a misnomer, no? hehe...kind of like Fat free butter. You really don't have a clue. Which part of 'impersonal is not defined by focus' don't you understand? Your focus can be narrow or general, none of that has any impact on the impersonal vantage point. You are using a misnomer then...because 'vantage point' means position of seeing.....if what you are talking about is that which is absent focus, why not just use "Impersonal"? The moment you start talking about 'what' is seen from something you are calling 'impersonal' you are talking about some degree of focus. How about you define what you mean then when you use the term "Impersonal vantage point"?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:52:59 GMT -5
Self is all there is equivalent to Consciousness is all there is. When consciousness identifies itself with mind-body, it believes itself to be a little guy who sits inside the brain and directing the life, So creation unfolds accordingly. "We are all that is in expression / experience" I can't never know whether other individual is the vehicle of perception of same consciousness, So 'we' is simply a speculation. Your logic is siriusly flawed. Take a step back and look and it and draw the only correct logical conclusion instead of just answering from memory. If all there is is the Self, then who are you and who are those alleged others? Tell me! There is no quality that can be assigned to that 'who' without turning away from emptiness and back into form. Beyond saying it is all the same 'who' or all Self, there is no-thing that we can say 'about' Self that does not move the discussion into the context of appearances.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:56:51 GMT -5
What you are is Consciousness, that's all you know, you can't know anything other than that, the individual who appears in your consciousness is image in your consciousnesses, So actuality beyond that image can't be known. That's how it looks from the personal vantage point, yes. Now take the next step! If you are asking him to see something in particular about the quality/nature of Self/Consciousness, you are actually asking him to step into the realm of appearances/form. the moment we ascribe qualities to various appearances that arise in Consciousness, we've entered into 'thing-ness.'
|
|