|
Post by andrew on Nov 4, 2018 4:16:01 GMT -5
What's that got to do with the questions I asked? This is the way I understand why he keeps bringing that up. The idea of an objective reality conflicts with the perspective (that is more than just an idea), that the only thing you can know for certain is that, you are. The question of whether or not other people are as real as you implies an objective reality because it implies some sort of knowing beyond the one and only thing you can know, for certain, which is, once again, that, you are. Your point that this is a personal perspective is one I agree with, but one that I can understand how they would deny it, and find as pejorative. In impersonal terms: how is it that we share this commonality, if there is no objective, physical reality in which to share it, and how is it that "Consciousness" can be undivided, if you are not me, and I am not you? 'The world is appearing in me (or to me), but I don't know if the world is appearing in you (or to you)'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2018 4:23:19 GMT -5
This is the way I understand why he keeps bringing that up. The idea of an objective reality conflicts with the perspective (that is more than just an idea), that the only thing you can know for certain is that, you are. The question of whether or not other people are as real as you implies an objective reality because it implies some sort of knowing beyond the one and only thing you can know, for certain, which is, once again, that, you are. Your point that this is a personal perspective is one I agree with, but one that I can understand how they would deny it, and find as pejorative. In impersonal terms: how is it that we share this commonality, if there is no objective, physical reality in which to share it, and how is it that "Consciousness" can be undivided, if you are not me, and I am not you? 'The world is appearing in me (or to me), but I don't know if the world is appearing in you (or to you)'. Assuming they'd agree with that, as far as I can tell, each of them has quite forcefully rejected any and all conclusions and characterizations you've made about what they might mean, if they would put it that way, by "appearing in me" or "appearing to me". My recollection from the dialogs is that both you and Reefs conclude that they're arguing for separation, and Reefs even goes so far as to conclude that they don't even realize they're doing it as they're doing it. They deny they're arguing for separation. My opinion is that any opinion based on a series of ever finer conceptual distinctions in a dialog like this, very simply, is, what it is. An opinion.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 4, 2018 4:28:09 GMT -5
'The world is appearing in me (or to me), but I don't know if the world is appearing in you (or to you)'. Assuming they'd agree with that, as far as I can tell, each of them has quite forcefully rejected any and all conclusions and characterizations you've made about what they might mean, if they would put it that way, by "appearing in me" or "appearing to me". My recollection from the dialogs is that both you and Reefs conclude that they're arguing for separation, and Reefs even goes so far as to conclude that they don't even realize they're doing it as they're doing it. They deny they're arguing for separation. My opinion is that any opinion based on a series of ever finer conceptual distinctions in a dialog like this, very simply, is, what it is. An opinion. Oh I put it both ways to give them the option, for example, gopal is more likely to say 'to me' but Fig is more likely to say 'in me'. Obviously they deny that they are arguing for separation, I'm surprised you would even feel the need to say that! I agree with Reefs on that, i.e they don't realize they're doing it when they're doing it. The way you put it is pretty close to the way I would put it, but as I am a persistent arguer of the point, it wouldn't make sense for them to acknowledge that I understand what they are saying. If I DO understand them, and can show them the boundary of that understanding, then they have a problem. So it's better to say that I don't understand them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 4:43:34 GMT -5
Is it because Enigma's not sure what the correspondent is? I know you're joking but my experience with this is that he's got a perspective, and he's unwilling to compromise that perspective, but he's very willing to continue any dialog with anyone, and all completely absent any demand for compromise from his correspondent. For me, this led to some interesting paths to understanding where he was coming from that often led through points in the discussion where any linear meaning of language completely broke down. What I see happening, again and again, is an unwillingness to go through those types of transitions on the part of his correspondents without making some demand that he make some sort of compromise. Like I just wrote to him yesterday, a little disinterest in what other peeps rezz with, can go an awful long way. Really? I know and you know that he needs a degree of trust. All adults know that without trust the best can't reveal itself and the true can't be seen. When trusted, yeah he's capable of writing some apt and universal understandings. Are they great? Well.. as you pointed out yesterday.. that's most likely a beholder issue. I get that the breaking down of the linear meaning of language is a natural and initially, unusual side efffect of discovering what is always here. Though what you see happening to him may have been agreed a very very long time ago, to give you a taste of the emotional impact the contrast in receptivity to his ideas, can bring.. (now you can tell that I'm joking ) Though seriously again.. you've just written a whole paragraph on how he doesn't compromise.. so how far can your nugget of advice really go to correct what is clearly a mechanised aspect?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 4, 2018 4:52:42 GMT -5
Is it because Enigma's not sure what the correspondent is? I know you're joking but my experience with this is that he's got a perspective, and he's unwilling to compromise that perspective, but he's very willing to continue any dialog with anyone, and all completely absent any demand for compromise from his correspondent. For me, this led to some interesting paths to understanding where he was coming from that often led through points in the discussion where any linear meaning of language completely broke down. What I see happening, again and again, is an unwillingness to go through those types of transitions on the part of his correspondents without making some demand that he make some sort of compromise. Like I just wrote to him yesterday, a little disinterest in what other peeps rezz with, can go an awful long way. I might be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that you think I have been asking him to compromise? If so, that's not what I have been asking.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2018 5:47:28 GMT -5
Just wanted to add this: I used to talk to Figgles about personal vs. impersonal several years ago and she always insisted that the impersonal is really just a more expansive view in comparison to the personal view while I insisted that it takes a quantum leap in order to get from personal to impersonal. So yeah, we are making the same point here. Okag, yes, then expansive view here would be 'the world is appearing in I' (but I don't know if the world is appearing in 'you'). The quantum leap 'abandons' (or 'transcends') the duality of I-you. The quantum leap means seeing with an entirely different set of eyes. That's why this can't be a matter of degrees as some peeps would like to have it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2018 5:52:19 GMT -5
Well, no one likes to be convinced by someone else that s/he is actually missing a key realization and therefore has come only half circle, right? So never mind that. I'm more interested in talking about it in general terms anyway. What I've been getting at is what I wrote in my reply to Lolly. Knowing your own nature naturally means knowing the nature of everything else. That's the very definition of SR. And the SVP cannot know its own nature in that sense. The best the SVP can come up with is an idea about it's own nature. And this is a very interesting topic. How far can the SVP go? What are the limits of understanding? If you do the "Who am I?" meditation Ramana suggested, and if you do it thoroughly, it will inevitably end in silence. It will end in uncertainty re: your identity. Which will make it abundantly clear that your identity so far has only been an idea construct. You don't have to be SR in order to see that. That was my point to Lolly. The SVP can already see thru it within its own limitations. The SVP just can't end it. And as already mentioned, the only absolute certainty the SVP has is its own existence. And when you keep in mind that the SVP can't do without identity poker, if you combine what I have just said, what the SVP will eventually come up with is something like "I am existence itself" (or Beingness or Isness or Consciousness or Awareness etc.). And that's what the SR will certainly agree with. And this I think is where the SVP reaches its limit. That's how far the identity poker can potentially go. So as long as we keep talking on such a very abstract level, the SVP and the SR can agree on almost everything. Where you will see the differences in understanding though is on the topic about 'others'. That's why this is such a hot topic. The SR doesn't even think in terms of others or appearances. And the SVP cannot think any other than in terms of others and appearances. So that's where the clash of perspectives naturally has to happen every time. Now, the SR can adopt the perspective of the SVP easily and understand the logic of it within the context of the SVP and even speak from that context, but the SVP cannot adopt the perspective of the SR and so cannot speak from that context. You just can't fake this. This has always been blatantly obvious when people talk about oneness and argue for separation at the same time in the same sentence all the time. Long story short: you can get very far in understanding just by philosophical means if you do it thoroughly, you can even get so far that most of the time your understanding seems indistinguishable from the SR. And I think that happens a lot, especially in non-duality circles and with folks who are able to handle complex concepts. But there are certain topics where the actual understanding will be revealed one way or another, where you will clearly see who actually has a reference for what it means to have passed thru the gateless gate and who hasn't. Yes to all that. In regard to the highlighted bit...it's why I have said that all is required is for the 'one that is aware/conscious' to realize that this awareness/conscious is not actually finite. Then the question of 'others that are aware/conscious' is gone. And yes, the SVP can reach a point of 'I am existence/beingness etc', and because this is 'non-conceptually known', it can seem more profound that it is. In one way it IS profound, but if there are any questions about the nature of 'another', then it's not profound enough. It's still identity poker. It's still philosophy, but it doesn't seem like it is. Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 4, 2018 6:04:48 GMT -5
who are you and what have you done with Raj? hmm? Gopal never agree to disagree ? I find argument with Enigma related to 'God has fallen into his own dream' survives only for argument. Infact what I see here is, the one which I very much try to prove attracts the argument and person with opposite theory. When I try to prove Predetermination,I attract Enigma with God has fallen into the dream. When I try to prove outer world doesn't exist in itself, I attract pilgrims and few others, when I try to prove other people existence can't be known, I attract Andrew,Tenka,Reefs. When I try to prove story decides everything,I attract Enigma,someNothing,Figgles just to ARGUE against me. Trying to prove something attracts the people and brings the argument for me. Same thing happens in religious argument as well, when I try to prove Jesus did not preexist and Jesus is not God, I attract trinitarians to argue against me. I CAN SEE THE ILLUSION NOW! This happens to everyone, it's the playing out of karma. It's the way that polarity is transcended, it's how God is awakening collectively. The political situation in many countries is a great example of what you said here. Right/Left are constantly attracting to each other. And at this point in the karmic cycle, the attraction is very fast indeed. 20 years ago....100 years ago....the attracting was much slower.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2018 6:10:31 GMT -5
Yes, I know I can't know appearing people are real or not. And I also know why you three are disagreeing with me and I also know why I can never convince you. So I decided to stop this argument. Gopal, I think you are missing the boat on this, your position is in a very real sense just an abstraction (although ultimately accurate). The point is you don't live your life in the manner of your view. You live daily life, and forum life AS IF other people exist, AS IF all things you encounter, exist. That's right. Now compare this to the positions of Figgles and Enigma.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 4, 2018 6:39:26 GMT -5
hmm? Gopal never agree to disagree ? I find argument with Enigma related to 'God has fallen into his own dream' survives only for argument. Infact what I see here is, the one which I very much try to prove attracts the argument and person with opposite theory. When I try to prove Predetermination,I attract Enigma with God has fallen into the dream. When I try to prove outer world doesn't exist in itself, I attract pilgrims and few others, when I try to prove other people existence can't be known, I attract Andrew,Tenka,Reefs. When I try to prove story decides everything,I attract Enigma,someNothing,Figgles just to ARGUE against me. Trying to prove something attracts the people and brings the argument for me. Same thing happens in religious argument as well, when I try to prove Jesus did not preexist and Jesus is not God, I attract trinitarians to argue against me. I CAN SEE THE ILLUSION NOW! This happens to everyone, it's the playing out of karma. It's the way that polarity is transcended, it's how God is awakening collectively. The political situation in many countries is a great example of what you said here. Right/Left are constantly attracting to each other. And at this point in the karmic cycle, the attraction is very fast indeed. 20 years ago....100 years ago....the attracting was much slower. I don't have the idea of collective reality . For me everything moves as one.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 4, 2018 6:41:01 GMT -5
Gopal, I think you are missing the boat on this, your position is in a very real sense just an abstraction (although ultimately accurate). The point is you don't live your life in the manner of your view. You live daily life, and forum life AS IF other people exist, AS IF all things you encounter, exist. That's right. Now compare this to the positions of Figgles and Enigma. Figgles,I, Enigma don't even differ a bit in this place ,there may be a chance that we three may use the words differently.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 4, 2018 6:59:56 GMT -5
This happens to everyone, it's the playing out of karma. It's the way that polarity is transcended, it's how God is awakening collectively. The political situation in many countries is a great example of what you said here. Right/Left are constantly attracting to each other. And at this point in the karmic cycle, the attraction is very fast indeed. 20 years ago....100 years ago....the attracting was much slower. I don't have the idea of collective reality . For me everything moves as one. I mean, it's how human beings are awakening. By 'everything', you mean what you are directly perceiving in your point of perception don't you? Or....?
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 4, 2018 7:10:02 GMT -5
I don't have the idea of collective reality . For me everything moves as one. I mean, it's how human beings are awakening. ok
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 4, 2018 7:11:38 GMT -5
I mean, it's how human beings are awakening. ok Not sure if you missed the edit or ignored it, if the latter, ok.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2018 10:09:02 GMT -5
Just wanted to add this: I used to talk to Figgles about personal vs. impersonal several years ago and she always insisted that the impersonal is really just a more expansive view in comparison to the personal view while I insisted that it takes a quantum leap in order to get from personal to impersonal. So yeah, we are making the same point here. To suggest there is impersonal that relates to peep is just denial . For some reason peeps would rather deny the personal because it's more floaty than admitting the obvious . It's the same scenario where peeps say there is no self identity and all that jazz when they self identify with what they are saying in reflection of themselves . There is room for both . There is room for self and no self, the personal and impersonal . It depends on the situation / environment at hand . Sometimes people think the personal and the impersonal are opposites. But that's not the case.
|
|