|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 17:59:32 GMT -5
But, if we're talking "suchness"....with suchness reigning supreme over thing-ness, transcending thingness but also thereby, including thingness, isn't the piece of software that is running on pieces of hardware no different than the person, shoe, paper-clip, all of which you've said you have realized via Kensho/CC, to BE a perceiving/experiencing, perceiver?
I seem to recall that when it came to the question of "are appearing people actually perceiving/perceivers," that you answered that from the relative position there was no direct knowing of an appearing person's perception, but that you did say that from an impersonal vantage point, that "yes," you had realization based, Absolute, certain knowing that all appearing people and even objects/things, such as socks and paperclips, were in fact, All unique perceivers/experiencers. Do I have that right?
If that is so, then I assume that absolute knowing, being realization based, would have to be NOW, direct and imminent knowing vs. a memory of the past Kensho/CC content?
And if so, and it's Absolute True that you DO know a person....a paperclip (A piece of software?) for Absolute certain to be a unique experiencer/perceiver, if it is in fact an immediate/NOW knowing, wouldn't you also then have immediate/Direct knowing of "the content" of that known perception/experience?
These are very pertinent questions. When I communicate with others here, I assume I talking to a relative consciousness, minds. I have no problem with anyone's realizations. But the language, I think E devised, is that realization informs the mind. So then, I'm talking to another mind, not the Infinite. So, having said that, I yield to figs questions. I guess I'll add, is it possible there is distortion from the Infinite to the page? Everyone here is necessarily using abstractions, here. Yes. That's what I'm trying to figure out. I appreciate that someone else sees that these ARE pertinent and relevant questions. All realized Truths are imminent and self evident, here...NOW, or it's not a realized Truth....I'm quite sure Reefs DID agree with that at one point, so we're on the same page at least with that one i think.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 18:00:03 GMT -5
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure ZD is...he seems to be suggesting that where there is distinction there is no knowing of 'suchness.'...that mind must be completely devoid of any content, or no go. Curious, I don't think he's saying that at all. Correct. Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 18:02:42 GMT -5
Only if you generate that abstract thought about the scenario. .. (** slurp! slurp! slurp! **) Yes, but I'm not sure how many people understand what "slurp slurp slurp" is pointing to. An amoeba is intelligent, and it "knows" how to find what it wants to eat, but is there any abstraction involved in that activity? A few of the most intelligent animals appear to have some level of abstraction, but based upon the latest research how far down the food chain that goes is questionable. A few highly-intelligent birds can apparently imagine two to four hypothetical future actions necessary to acquire a food reward, but it doesn't appear that dogs can do that. Dogs are intelligent, but whether they can match the birds in this regard is doubtful. Abstract thinking is not necessary for recognizing food. It appears to be the difference between gnosis and episteme. Abstract thinking is never necessary, but nor is it definitively, always problematic.
Being awake to all of it means allowing all of it, absent deep, fundamental judgments about HOW experience should unfold...or 'what' should arise.
And the convo about 'distinction' per se, is quite a different topic than the convo about abstract thought.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 30, 2023 18:04:15 GMT -5
That repsonse was from a query made in the context of members particiapting in a non-dual online forum. It speaks to the participants and their "personal truth" (beliefs, bias, conditioning, etc) Not to the Absolute truth. That's quite a creative interpretation that ignores the fact that A "non-dual perspective," puts personal growth/personal, ever-evolving truths well in their place.
It also ignores the fact that a non-dual perspective is not simply, willfully, immediately donned the moment a seeker hops on a Nonduality forum....there is an important realization/shift in locus of seeing for a true "non-dual perspective," to BE.
Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 20:27:27 GMT -5
Some minor things only and some differences in topics of interest. That's all. ZD is adamant that there is no person doing anything in any sense, that what appears to be a person acting is the movement of the Whole. I've pushed him to the limit on this. I even once brought up the Buddhist concept of the two truths, the relative truth of the everyday world and the Absolute Truth. His reply was no, there are not two truths, there is only one truth. You have a context of A-H LOA where Reefs can influence his life. This does not fit in any way-shape-or form with ZD's view. I'd say that's not a minor difference (acknowledging you also have a ND context like ZD). I guess my view is that where we agree is relatively meaningless. It's where we disagree that the rubber hits the road. But the universe loves paradox, where two things can be true. But see then, a "3-layer universe" explains paradox. Context is everything. A 3-layer universe explains war and killing and terrorism and "evil". Everyone is trying to live in their own best interests. ZD also has an everyday life context, where he answers his name, fills out tax forms and talks about his personal plans about the future and the latest scientific discoveries.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 20:30:01 GMT -5
ZD is adamant that there is no person doing anything in any sense, that what appears to be a person acting is the movement of the Whole. I've pushed him to the limit on this. I even once brought up the Buddhist concept of the two truths, the relative truth of the everyday world and the Absolute Truth. His reply was no, there are not two truths, there is only one truth. You have a context of A-H LOA where Reefs can influence his life. This does not fit in any way-shape-or form with ZD's view. I'd say that's not a minor difference (acknowledging you also have a ND context like ZD). I see no contradiction here. We usually use the word "person" to refer to a SVP, and the SVP is an illusion. What we are is THIS manifesting through human bodies. We can use conventional language to talk about all kinds of relative dualistic ideas about what's going on, but after one sees that THIS is all there is, it becomes clear that whatever a human is doing or thinking is what THIS is doing or thinking. In fact, when the sense of being a SVP collapses, life is felt to be more like a flow of being, or an unfolding of THIS, rather than static things happening to static entities. Furthermore, abstract ideas, such as "the relative world" or "the Absolute Truth," lose importance because it's seen that the relative and the absolute are one and the same. I should probably also mention that "THIS," as a pointer, is nothing more than a pointer because what the word "THIS" points to cannot be grasped by the intellect. That's exactly what I am referring to when I talk about 'extensions of Source'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 20:35:12 GMT -5
Notice how the parrot was only interested in play and having fun and not in proving anything to anyone. yeah, play is a lighter and more fun way to be. For humans, sometimes, it's complex. If one sincerely feels they have to fight, it's probably better to accept the movement than create resistance around it. It's basically Abe in a nutshell. They always recommend a playful approach to life. Because in play, you are in the flow. In the flow, you are in alignment. In alignment, you are connected to who you really are. Connected to who you really are, you have access to infinite intelligence and infinite resources. Having access to infinite intelligence and infinite resources, you can ride the waves of expansion out there on the leading edge. And when you do that, consistently, you must thrive on all fronts.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 20:40:28 GMT -5
The conceptualizing of the non-conceptual realization in order to talk about IS mindful, but the non-conceptual apprehension/realization is not. The reference for the realization itself, is beyond words...beyond ALL concepts. It just sounds like something of mind/conceptual as we write about 'it' and try to talk about 'it.' .. That's all we can do, so what I said above stands . Speaking about identifying oneself as unlimited and unbounded has to filter through what that means to oneself. In reflection of what one believes themselves to be . That is identifying through self association . Again, it's all mindful . There is no super trump identifying thingy going on .. it's just one form of identification that reflects something different from what someone else believes to be true in regards to what they think they are . It's what I call identity poker. It's the self (SVP) masquerading as Self (the Infinite). And that doesn't work, of course. It will end in a conceptual pretzel at some point, because at the core the perspective is still one of separation (SVP). This has been shown repeatedly in the other perceivers and aliveness discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 20:54:29 GMT -5
I see no contradiction here. We usually use the word "person" to refer to a SVP, and the SVP is an illusion. What we are is THIS manifesting through human bodies. We can use conventional language to talk about all kinds of relative dualistic ideas about what's going on, but after one sees that THIS is all there is, it becomes clear that whatever a human is doing or thinking is what THIS is doing or thinking. In fact, when the sense of being a SVP collapses, life is felt to be more like a flow of being, or an unfolding of THIS, rather than static things happening to static entities. Furthermore, abstract ideas, such as "the relative world" or "the Absolute Truth," lose importance because it's seen that the relative and the absolute are one and the same. I should probably also mention that "THIS," as a pointer, is nothing more than a pointer because what the word "THIS" points to cannot be grasped by the intellect. OK, I'm getting close. I don't guess you read any of the Jed McKenna books. They were a kind of part-story fictionalized account of this guy, "Jed" (not his real name), I presume based on his life (that's just a kind of introduction). But Jed got to the point where he could manifest his life circumstances in any way he wished (money, do what he wished, travel, etc). Reefs claims to be able to do the same, "form" his life circumstances via Abraham-Hicks kind of "bending reality" (my words). You said there is no contradiction. So you accept Reefs ability to do this? Serious question. (Almost everything you previously wrote seems to indicate there is no person doing anything, so there isn't even a "Jed" or a Reefs who could do such things). So it seems your view would be no, any appearance of such doing is illusory, things are just happening the way they are happening, period. A truly serious question. That's not what I am saying at all. All of this LOA and deliberate creation talk has to be seen in the extensions of Source context or else you will inevitably argue for separation along the way. There is no separate volitional entity that can do this or that using LOA. That may be the popular understanding of LOA, but that's nonsense and not what I am saying. There is the appearance of having free will and being able to decide this or that. But in reality, when you examine it carefully, before you become conscious of your decisions, they've already been made. Source is running the show. However, you are, we all are, extensions of Source. And ONLY in that context is there free will and can you make your own decisions and are you deliberate creator. And because of that, there's no contradiction between my talks about LOA/deliberate creation and non-duality. I think Laughter gets this, ZD probably too. Figgles still doesn't get it. She starts with the premise that these two have to be necessarily at odds. That's why I can't get thru to her. She starts with a flawed premise and it never changes. She just changes the wording. Maybe I have better luck with you now. * fingers crossed * In short: As an SVP there is no free will at all and you have no ability to create. As an extension of Source, free will is the basis of your reality and you are the creator of your own reality. I think the mistake you guys make when I talk to you about LOA and how you create your own reality is that you think that I am addressing you as an SVP. But I am not. I am addressing you you as an extension of Source, always. Or else it wouldn't make any sense and I would indeed contradicting myself when you compare what I say about LOA/deliberate creation vs. what I say about non-duality and SR. Glad we finally cleared that up.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 21:06:28 GMT -5
It's as if the electricity in an appliance identified itself with the appliance. I'm a blender. I'm a fridge. I'm washer. I'm a robot. I'm Chuckie. Yes. This is basically the 'streams of consciousness' vs. 'individual clumps of consciousness' analogy. Butt... as Tenka pointed out, identifying as the Infinite, Source, Isness, Beingness, Consciousness, THIS or even ______ isn't much better. You just have to get off the identification train altogether. And only then you can talk and your talk will make sense and you will not contradict yourself at some point.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 21:10:20 GMT -5
ZD is adamant that there is no person doing anything in any sense, that what appears to be a person acting is the movement of the Whole. I've pushed him to the limit on this. I even once brought up the Buddhist concept of the two truths, the relative truth of the everyday world and the Absolute Truth. His reply was no, there are not two truths, there is only one truth. You have a context of A-H LOA where Reefs can influence his life. This does not fit in any way-shape-or form with ZD's view. I'd say that's not a minor difference (acknowledging you also have a ND context like ZD). I guess my view is that where we agree is relatively meaningless. It's where we disagree that the rubber hits the road. But the universe loves paradox, where two things can be true. But see then, a "3-layer universe" explains paradox. Context is everything. A 3-layer universe explains war and killing and terrorism and "evil". Everyone is trying to live in their own best interests. ZD also has an everyday life context, where he answers his name, fills out tax forms and talks about his personal plans about the future and the latest scientific discoveries. Yes, I understand all that. But even so, he doesn't consider even that as personal.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 21:14:09 GMT -5
Who said distinctions were a problem? The distinction between clean and dirty water ain't gonna' quench yer thirst. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure ZD is...he seems to be suggesting that where there is distinction there is no knowing of 'suchness.'...that mind must be completely devoid of any content, or no go. He's saying, for him, it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:16:13 GMT -5
Nah. I got nuther one for ya. This morning I bent down to pick something up off the floor and my hand naturally rested on the side of the bath as I knelt. The bath is enamel and as my hand came to rest on it there was a sensation of coldness. This precipitated the arising of the thought, 'that's cold', shortly followed by ' the temperature must have dropped outside since yesterday'. Both of which are obviously mental overlays to the sensation itself. But I took the opportunity the trace the occurrence as a whole backwards, and I'm adamant that the sensation 'coldness' was distinctive prior to the aforementioned mental overlays. So whilst the distinctive sensation of coldness arose prior to the conception and classification of it, it was only subsequently recognised as such. Which is why I posit distinctiveness in conjunction with sensation and perception. I'm adamant that it was perceived and apparent at a more fundamental level than the idea and classification of it. There's an obvious difference between a mental distinction - say, lat/long lines - and the contrast of physical sensation. To say that the tub is cold before you touched it simply acknowledges physical reality from a personal perspective. There are realizations and experiences that are trips to the other side of the looking glass, and afterwards, nothing really looks exactly the same as it did before. There are also flights of intellectual fancy that are shadows and hints of these realizations and experiences.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 21:18:13 GMT -5
Looks a bit like pointer-licking to me, idk. At the very least we're going around in circles now.
Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific if you expect me to follow along with that. For convenience, what I wrote was that "The thought of 'God imagining' isn't active in a quiescent mind".
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 21:18:35 GMT -5
figre, To understand another's position, you have to completely step outside your own position. Other people can't be understood from one's own perspective. Your own perspective can't but distort. (IOW, you can't fit someone else's square peg into your round hole).
|
|