|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2023 0:42:59 GMT -5
Yes. As I recall. In your terms perhaps it would be something like "dark night of the soul is non-optional". The Jed author may or may not have used that phrase. Well, St John of the Cross said the darkness comes as a result of getting close to God, blinded by the Light as it were. This is basically what happened to Saul-Paul on the road to Damascus. He was blinded encountering Jesus, for 3 days I think it was. (I read the poem and St John's interpretation about 35 years ago, there are two dark nights actually, the second much darker. [The dark night of the senses and the dark night of the spirit]. I don't recall if he mentioned Paul-Saul).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2023 0:50:27 GMT -5
I raised a similar point a last month. [1] I think people responded at that time saying it was a "context mix", though I don't fully agree with that. Yes. If we include ALL appearing objects/things under the umbrella of "suchness" then there is no context mix. There is nothing that falls outside of 'suchness.' If suchness equals knowing/experiencing the fundamental nature of ALL facets of experience, all apparent objects/things, and that 'suchness' equals Absolute knowing each thing/object, even a rock/sock, to "a perceiver/experiencer," why would an AI-bot, be any different than an appearing person....or...an appearing rock/sock? Yup....and, As soon as 'suchness' enters into the convo as an answer to the question, then we're talking impersonal seeing/context where none of that matters.....regardless of 'what' is appearing, it's all included. Yup....seems It's well underway already. Yes. This is a very oddly pretty good film, quite an acting job by Ryan, Lars and the Real Girl:
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 0:50:47 GMT -5
Do you agree with those A-H terms?
If so then, is it only people that have an inner Being.....do animals, paper-clips...socks...rocks?
And, does this 'inner Being,' have anything to do with your Absolute knowing that all appearing people are perceivers/experiencers? And if so...then where does that leave the paperclips and rocks that you also say you've realized to be having their own unique experience/perception?
Those A-H terms have some practical value. And they have to be understood and used in that context. Inner Being is still the thingness context, after all.
Right. But the realization of Oneness does impact the 'thingness' context. If it didn't, what would the big deal be about SR/awakening? Once the SVP is seen through/absent, you don't keep resurrecting an SVP and 'laws' that are believed to govern experience.
Life is not lived in two distinct contexts following SR...there is integration...with the locus of seeing from beyond, as primary and the personal vantage point, then, still indeed very much an integral facet of experience, but, couched within that.
Again;
" is it only people that have an inner Being.....do animals, paper-clips...socks...rocks?
And, does this 'inner Being,' have anything to do with your Absolute knowing that all appearing people are perceivers/experiencers? And if so...then where does that leave the paperclips and rocks that you also say you've realized to be having their own unique experience/perception?"
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 1:17:47 GMT -5
I find this bit confusing and am trying to understand.
Recently I think you said that 'the person' is 'in time.' And I think you've said your Absolute knowing that persons are perceivers/experiencers goes hand in hand with having realized "true nature"....?
Here you are asserting "true nature" to be "outside of time." So how is it then that you know "the person" (that which you've denoted to be "in time") to be for Absolute certain, a perceiver/experiencer, via a "realization"? It seems to me to be a context mix.
"What" specifically is it that you "know" to be "the experiencer/perceiver"....?
The question of "Is it/can it be known for certain if appearing people are actual perceivers/experiencers," was always a question about "the appearing person/body." Absent an appearing body/person, outside of/beyond time, what is there to BE "a perceiver/an experiencer?"
I don't think I've said that persons are perceivers. You may be confusing person with individual.
The initial assertion that you voiced disagreement with from the get-go was always about appearing "people" and whether or not they could be known to be actual perceivers/experiencers.
There, you are clearly stating that Kensho will take care of the confusion as to whether or not "a person is perceiving" or not.
But, then there is this post also...
Do you see why someone might be confused? Your 1st quote there in 2016 asserts that you CAN know that people are real...
Please...Can you/will you explain?
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 1:29:21 GMT -5
Would you classify that quote above as an Absolute Truth, a theory....a relative truth? This is where I get confused with your LOA/deliberate creation talk.
How does that belief/theory survive the Ultimately/Absolute seeing that time is an illusion...that causation.... past/future are mere ideas arising NOW, that there is ultimately an absence of personal volition, that it's all one seamless movement...? All there is, is NOW...HERE....THIS.
It just seems so obvious to me that in the seeing through of separation, volition, causation, time, the very idea of "LOA/creating reality" gets called into question. Absent actual time/passage/one moment "becoming" the next, this happening causing a future happening, absent actual causality, how does that idea of LOA/deliberate creation still stand up as a valid law/truth?
Deliberate creation and LOA is the thingness context. And the thingness context is also the practical everyday life context. And in that context, and understanding of LOA and deliberate creation has enormous value. In the context of absolute truth, it has no relevance, of course. But that's not where everyday life happens. When someone asks you who you are, you answer with your name, you don't tell them that you are All-That-Is or the ground of being, right? Absolute seeing/realization 'informs' mind....informs the relative...experience is impacted.
Following SR, a me character, complete with name, personality, likes/dislikes, continue to appear within experience, but what's now absence is the mistaking that 'me character' to be an inherently existent, volitional, some-one who is inherently a doer...a thinker....a perceiver/experiencer.
What you seem to be proposing is that SR has zero actual, day to day life, experiential impact....that the two contexts remain distinct and are not integrated, and that is plain and simply, not so.
Answering to my name does not equal a return back to buying into volition, causation, time, as "actual/law."
It's not that LOA has "no relevance" in the Absolute context, it's that a "Law" that supposedly governs manifestation and that a person can use to "volitionally/deliberately" create a future experience that conforms with his personal, need-based desires, gets seen to be a complete and total delusion.....a misconception based upon imagined separation.
Once separation has been seen through, the ideas/misconceptions the SVP entertained, all go with it.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 1:35:36 GMT -5
Yes, precisely. Really well put.
& If we clump together ALL appearance...all content....all 'waves' to denote such as "Imaginary" then there's no means by which to distinguish an illusion/delusion from that which IS appearing.
Fundamental Separation is imagined. Distinction is not....distinction does appear. The appearance of distinction never was the problem. Erroneously imagining/mistaking that to be evidence of "fundamental separation," was/is.
Yes. Maybe I don't understand ZD definition of distinction? It seems animals necessarily recognize distinctions (absent abstractions). Yeah, I'd agree....so long as there is experience of any sort, there IS distinction.
For me, 'distinction' is a reference to any perceivable...any content...arising....any 'movement/expression' at all, however minute/subtle/nuanced, arising within/to unwavering ground of awareness. Any-thing at all that arises in experience then, = 'distinction.' Absent distinction there can be no experience...nothing arising....equals no experience.
I think it's helpful if there's a reference for 'unwavering awareness' absent any and all content. A "relatively" silent mind is one thing...an absence of any minding...of ALL content, is another. And 'when' an expression, however subtle arises within/to that, it's crystal/clear obvious, that distinction has arisen.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 1:50:36 GMT -5
Correct. I haven't read any of the McKenna books because they sound like shock-jock stuff implying that waking up is some horrible transformative event (akin to "being skinned alive," etc). ITSW, Shiv's book, "Advaitacoholics Anonymous," appears to set up a straw man for people who are guru worshipers or people strongly attached to religious belief systems, and it ignores the simple down-to-earth path of having realizations that change one's habits of mind and lead to psychological freedom. Yes, THIS can apparently do lots of things that appear to be non-rational or non-logical. In the past I wondered if there could be a logical explanation for the "miracles" reported in various spiritual traditions. After a CC it became apparent that THIS can do anything via particular humans. I've never been interested in making anything unusual happen or manifesting anything because ordinary life seems fine just as it is. I've seen unusual things happen, and even my wife has had a non-local event occur, so I accept that THIS can manifest in many unexpected and non-logical ways. The Jed character does make it clear in his first book that he's attached to the idea that the person has to go through very negative experiences prior to "enlightenment". I've only ever read that re-enforced in the quotes from the latter books I've come across. Yes, dark (k)night of the soul. Jed is a tad obsessed with the Ahab character in the Moby Dick story.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 1:55:35 GMT -5
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. OK, thanks, no, I've never known that was your position. When you write you write a lot about context. So I've always thought you meant the LOA-A-H stuff from the context of individuation. Yea, that clears up most everything. I've brought up my problem with A-H before, that they do not distinguish between LOA from the standpoint of the small s self and True Self (I know I have a different view of True Self than you). I don't recall you addressing that from your perspective (above), seems it would have been a golden opportunity. But no mind, we're there now. Yes, small s self and big S Self are arbitrary distinctions anyway. So they don't even go there. Seth said so as well. We just make those distinctions for convenience sake so that we can talk about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 2:01:51 GMT -5
What specifically do you mean by "account for individual experiences, integrate it somehow"?
The seeing of the entirety of experiential content as a temporal expression of the unwavering/abiding, couches and includes the experience of unique, discrete experience/apparent windows of perception. There is no need to account for or integrate that which is clearly seen/known to be fundamentally not separate.
Apply it to real life circumstances. You see, your dream stuff ontology is irrelevant in a real life situations. You can't help but take everyone as a real perceiver, despite your realization to the contrary, and in the hustle and bustle of life or even these forum conversations, you never even notice how you do that. What does that mean though? What is it to take someone to be "a real" perceiver vs. an apparent perceiver? How would you know the difference?
Seeing it all as 'dream-stuff' is exactly the same as seeing 'suchness.' And it's not so at all that that seeing/realization has zero impact. Just because you can't readily see that impact, does not mean it's not there. Freedom is not going to necessarily be overtly observable just by observing general behaviors and engagements with the appearing world.
& I don't specifically single out "people/persons" to denote them as dream-content/suchness...the entirety of it ALL is 'an appearance arising within/to the unwavering ground...but indeed, appearing people and their apparent sentience, perceptions, experiencing, are all included/encompassed in that.
There is only one "Kind" of perceiver....and it's relative, experiential, appearance based.
The realization that ultimately, perception/experience, thought, doings, actions, ALL of it....is happening, absent a 'something/some-one' that is giving rise to it, doing it, is not at war with the appearance of people who apparently perceive.
The very idea of a 'real/actual/Absolutely known/realized' perceiving entity/person = misconception. It's a context mix. The question can indeed be asked, but can't be soundly, (relatively) answered with certainty from the relative context and from the transcendent/Absolute/impersonal context, the question is entirely misconceived.
The very question/wondering about whether apparent perceiving people are "actual" perceivers, involves a context mix and a misconception. In seeing 'suchness' how/why would such a question ever arise...? How could there be a specific some-thing, that is "perceiving/experiencing/doing/seeing/thinking" etc, if Oneness/no separation is the Truth? To single out single thing/object to declare it as a "perceiving/experiencing/thinking/seeing/doing" entity, is to invoke separation.
Relatively speaking, for the non-awake seeker, the question is fine, but once all appearance, including the appearance of perceiving/experiencing 'people,' are all seen with eyes that see "suchness" the question itself crumbles and is seen to be a nonsense.
You continue to assert that the seeing of ALL content, including apparent sentient/experiencing/perceiving people has zero impact on day to day life, but what you are missing is is the 'absence' that obviously, of course, goes unseen as you observe. You cannot know what that absence is or how it impacts day to day experience, unless you have direct reference for that absence.
Rest assured, it makes all the difference in the world when the entirety of experiential content, ALL perceivables, both subtle and tangible, are seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence. It's plain and simply the difference between freedom and bondage.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 2:10:08 GMT -5
Correct. I just logged in and see 8 notifications from Figgles alone and at least 10 pages to catch up with. Anyway, here's what I am going to do. I promise to answer all her questions in all her posts to me today and tomorrow, no matter how many posts. But starting from next month, I am not going to promise anything anymore. I may reply or may not reply at all. This matter is not rocket science. With two open minds engaged, it can be sorted out in just a couple of post already. If it can't be sorted out after ten posts, then another hundred are not going to bring more clarity either. It's just going to be a waste of time and will annoy everyone involved. Think about it, if the student asks the teacher and the teacher answers with great clarity but the student doesn't get it and asks another hundred times and still doesn't get it, whose fault is it? And will asking another hundred times bring more clarity? Ya know...we also could just regard it as some good 'ol Nonduality forum conversation? Nothing terribly serious has ever really been going on with all this. How 'bout we try to have a bit of fun with it? I love having these talks about Truth....pointed challenge is more than welcome here...I kinda relish it actually...but each to his own....& Honestly Reefs, is this feels like nothing more than an awful sort of chore for you, you're off the hook...if ya wanna be.....I can bugger off back to my forum if it suits you better. Well, instead of just buggering off and then continuing with this on your own forum, did it ever occur to you to maybe finally give this matter a rest? Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 2:12:04 GMT -5
Yes. I don't see how ZD and Reefs stay in peaceful agreement. I hear ya. I think in short, there is motivation to do so...and we've all likely been there to some extent. It really is quite nice on these forums when that sense of resonance with another's pov arises and there's often a tendency to wanna keep riding that fun/enjoyable wave. I think there's a pattern in play for most of us.....we will try harder to see resonance/agreement in another's post when that has to date mostly been the case...and we will likely not try near as hard to see/find that resonance, if there's been a history of disagreement or challenge.
We may not BE 'machines,' but sometimes even while full out being aware we're doing so, we behave like them. As the frog used to say... "Put the paint brush down and back away from the easel slowly..."
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 2:23:59 GMT -5
You've quite perfectly described the issue with a supposed "Absolute, realized Knowing that people and rocks and paperclips are ALL each, unique, discrete perceivers/experiencers. The question of knowing regarding persons as actual perceivers/experiencers," is/was a relative question only. But it got answered with an Absolute answer and that's the issue. The question was about "a person," specifically, vs. arising content as a whole. The moment we begin talking about "Absolute, certain knowing/seeing" that each person is a unique, discrete perceiver/experiencer (and so are paper-clips/rocks/socks) we've entered into a misconceived context mix. But that WAS the assertion made. If there are no boundaries at all....by what means are you identifying/denoting a rock from a sock....a person from a paperclip to then know each specific item to be having it's own unique experience? How do you know a "paper-clip" to be having it's own unique perception/experience if there's no boundary appearing by which to denote "the paperclip." Apparent "Boundaries" by which an object/thing/person can be denoted/distinguished, were always inherent to the question of knowing, to the assertion of absence of knowing/misconceived question. To know of a particular 'thing/object' as having it's own, unique, discrete perception/experience, is to necessarily speak from the 'thingness' context. For all boundaries to be overlooked in favor of seeing the common "nature/ground" to content as a whole, absent dividing it up to denote specific objects, is indeed the "suchness" context. An Absolute knowing that "a" specific object....a "paperclip" is to invoke those boundaries that you say are not in play. Yes, precisely! This has always been my issue with your assertion of "Absolute knowing that "A" person..."A" paperclip...."A" sock, is having it's own, discrete, unique experience/perception...that each, singular object/thing has been realized to be "an" experiencer/perceiver. You've taken a seeing re: Fundamentals of All appearance (in general) and have applied that general "nature" (which can ever only be a pointer!) to specific, appearing objects/things to then arrive at your Absolute knowing of "discrete/unique" people, socks, rocks that 'each' are, an experiencer/perceiver. But your answer IS of the "thingness" context. (I know for Absolute certain that the appearing person...the sock....the rock....is having it's own unique perception/experience...that IT is a unique perceiver/experiencer.) From the get-go, you entered into the conversation to clearly and firmly refute the assertion of not knowing/question is misconceived, by saying that you DID know each of those things/objects to be perceivers. I totally agree, the question was always a relative one. The moment we try to take it into the Absolute context, we've got a misconception on our hands. But that's was your assertion...that socks are having their own unique perception/experience....as I recall you even went as far as suggesting that a sock did have a different kind of "experience/perception" than a person or an animal, but you were quite firm in your counter to the assertion of not knowing/misconceived question, that a sock was Absolutely known, via CC/Kensho realization, to be "a unique perceiver/experiencer." What I am saying isn't really any different from what Niz said: "In reality there is only consciousness. All life is conscious, all consciousness — alive. Even stones are conscious and alive." - Niz the Maharaj You see, we are going in circles. This Q & A game isn't going anywhere. Obviously we are not seeing eye to eye and are not going to given that this discussion has been going on for at least six years. From my perspective, you have not yet realized suchness, which means your only reference is thingness, which is precisely why you still struggle with the question about other perceivers, oneness and aliveness. IOW, you haven't seen into your true nature, you haven't realized yet who you really are. Because if you would, you would agree with what ZD and I have been saying and what Niz, Ramakrishna, Watts, Tolle and countless others have been saying.
So at this point, all I can offer is to agree to disagree and let this topic go for good. Suchness is reference to how the world of things is experienced post SR... to the realization of Oneness/absence of separation, the non-conceptual knowing that it's all ultimately, one seamless, undivided movement, abiding alongside the experience of and engagement with appearing, discrete, distinct things/objects/facets of experience.
Suchness is the primary, visceral knowing of essential Oneness amidst the appearance of many.
& I don't struggle with the question of perceivers at all. I've seen the question as misconceived...there's no struggling for an answer or wondering going on here.
I take issue with the idea of an Absolute answer to what can only ever be, a relative question.
In that quote, Niz is taking liberties....obviously speaking to someone who is still very mired in experience/duality. He often did that...spoke to a seeker from where the seeker sat...making at times, some very deep and wide concessions to mind. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
& here you are now, ready to completely dismiss this discussion just as we are making some headway. This is what you've done every time....ignore direct questions...insist that I simply don't get what you are saying, but all without offering explanations.
Before folks can arrive at an agreement to disagree, it's kind of nice if there's an actual understanding of what it is they are actually disagreeing on, first.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 2:31:43 GMT -5
I don't think I've said that persons are perceivers. You may be confusing person with individual. The initial assertion that you voiced disagreement with from the get-go was always about appearing "people" and whether or not they could be known to be actual perceivers/experiencers.
There, you are clearly stating that Kensho will take care of the confusion as to whether or not "a person is perceiving" or not.
But, then there is this post also...
Do you see why someone might be confused? Your 1st quote there in 2016 asserts that you CAN know that people are real... Please...Can you/will you explain?
See, told ya! I never said that. If I would have meant persons, I would have said persons, not people. I'm glad I didn't spend any time on that reply, hehe. What a waste of time. You see Faye, you are quite good with words. However, you are bit careless with details and tend to fill in the missing parts with your imagination. Enigma called that picture painting. And then you go off, usually very enthusiastically, on a very strange tangent that has no basis in realty or any relation to what has actually been said. Enigma called that giraffing. So can you see how I may naturally feel very reluctant to play this Q & A game with you again? I've seen it before, I know how it is played and I also know how it ends. And I see you already fully back in painting and giraffing mode. Your confusion is your own doing. Pay a bit more attention to the actual words on the screen and what has been said before and then you don't have to ask the same old questions again and again. Maybe going in circles is your idea of "having a bit of fun", but to me, having to explain myself over and over again, correcting your misreadings and misconceptions over and over again is the exact opposite of fun. You are right, it's a kind of drudgery actually. It's utterly predictable, it's monotonous, it's boring and it doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than keeping some kind of imaginary conflict going, which you seem to enjoy somehow.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 2:32:47 GMT -5
Ya know...we also could just regard it as some good 'ol Nonduality forum conversation? Nothing terribly serious has ever really been going on with all this. How 'bout we try to have a bit of fun with it? I love having these talks about Truth....pointed challenge is more than welcome here...I kinda relish it actually...but each to his own....& Honestly Reefs, is this feels like nothing more than an awful sort of chore for you, you're off the hook...if ya wanna be.....I can bugger off back to my forum if it suits you better. Well, instead of just buggering off and then continuing with this on your own forum, did it ever occur to you to maybe finally give this matter a rest? Asking for a friend. You really do hate being challenged, don't you? Seriously, that's an opportunity...delve into it.
The 'matter' as it seems to me, involves a common and pervasive delusion and it's one that rears up consistently in talk about Nonduality as the conversations gets more deeper and more nuanced.
The very best conversations on Nonduality forums hinge upon pointing out delusion..away from the false....and like it or not, your ontology and your interests in defending it, provide great fodder.
If it really bothers you, you could always just stop visiting/reading along...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2023 2:33:43 GMT -5
There is no separate reality for others; there is only one reality that encompasses us all. We are all one entity. The concept of "my reality" and "your reality" does not exist in this context. Yup. This is Ultimately so. Individuated, discrete "experiences" is the realm of the relative, only. To try to drag that into the Absolute context to arrive at an Absolute knowing/Truth about the existence of actual, multiple realities, is to commit a context error/mix.
The ultimately reality encompasses/couches the appearance of distinct, unique, personal realities. No need to deny that appearance so long as it's seen for what it is.
But nothing operates separately.
|
|