'ISness"

Originally Posted by Portto

Good stuff.
So, what is it that knows/sees/perceives the play?

Part of the play is the idea that there is something experiencing the play. Typically it's defined as a separate experiencer such that there seems to be a subject experiencing and an object being experienced. This idea isn't necessary in order for experience to happen, only for it to be conceptualized and thought about, and so there's no problem with experience happening, or as I like to say, appearances appearing.

Conceptualizing a subject and object expands the potential of what can be experienced since now there is a personal relationship with the experience, giving it depth and meaning and drama and movement. There still isn't a problem with taking on this personal role as the individual subject of his own experience, since it's basically still true that a unique experience is appearing to you.

The difficulty comes when the question arises, 'who is this experience happening to?' The question is based on the assumption that if there is an apparently unique experience appearing, that it must be appearing to a unique experiencer, and this is where it all goes horribly wrong.

The function of creation is to imagine differences and form relationships between them, which leads to the movement of experience, so it's very natural to create/imagine that there is a separate experiencer with various defining attributes and a body and a mind with needs, want, fears, personal history and so on.

Now we have more than just a unique experience happening through a unique perspective, we apparently have someone to whom it is happening, and who is the beneficiary or victim of that experience, and now suffering becomes an inevitable part of the experience.

To address your question more directly, when the idea that there is a 'who' that experiences is questioned, the question naturally arises again, 'If this 'who' is not a mind/body, 'who is it really'? As was the case the first time the question was asked, which led to mind/body identification, the question is still an imaginary bifurcation for the purpose of creating more experiences, and in truth the question is not real. There can be no answer to what knows, sees, perceives because it's an attempt to create another imaginary relationship; (Awareness/Consciousness vs knowing or perceiving something)

I don't usually 'go there' the way Andrew sometimes does, since we're all still arguing over whether or not we have a little free will or a lot of free will (hehe) but that's the bottom line. It all collapses into what is appearing right here and now, and whatever the next thought or question is, is just more of what's appearing here and now. It's just THIS.

Originally Posted by Phroggy

Part of the play is the idea that there is something experiencing the play. Typically it's defined as a separate experiencer such that there seems to be a subject experiencing and an object being experienced. This idea isn't necessary in order for experience to happen, only for it to be conceptualized and thought about, and so there's no problem with experience happening, or as I like to say, appearances appearing.

Conceptualizing a subject and object expands the potential of what can be experienced since now there is a personal relationship with the experience, giving it depth and meaning and drama and movement. There still isn't a problem with taking on this personal role as the individual subject of his own experience, since it's basically still true that a unique experience is appearing to you.

The difficulty comes when the question arises, 'who is this experience happening to?' The question is based on the assumption that if there is an apparently unique experience appearing, that it must be appearing to a unique experiencer, and this is where it all goes horribly wrong.

The function of creation is to imagine differences and form relationships between them, which leads to the movement of experience, so it's very natural to create/imagine that there is a separate experiencer with various defining attributes and a body and a mind with needs, want, fears, personal history and so on.

Now we have more than just a unique experience happening through a unique perspective, we apparently have someone to whom it is happening, and who is the beneficiary or victim of that experience, and now suffering becomes an inevitable part of the experience.

To address your question more directly, when the idea that there is a 'who' that experiences is questioned, the question naturally arises again, 'If this 'who' is not a mind/body, 'who is it really'? As was the case the first time the question was asked, which led to mind/body identification, the question is still an imaginary bifurcation for the purpose of creating more experiences, and in truth the question is not real. There can be no answer to what knows, sees, perceives because it's an attempt to create another imaginary relationship; (Awareness/Consciousness vs knowing or perceiving something)

I don't usually 'go there' the way Andrew sometimes does, since we're all still arguing over whether or not we have a little free will or a lot of free will (hehe) but that's the bottom line. It all collapses into what is appearing right here and now, and whatever the next thought or question is, is just more of what's appearing here and now. It's just THIS.

That's some really great insight!
Thanks, Phroggy!

Greetings..

Originally Posted by Phroggy

Part of the play is the idea that there is something experiencing the play. Typically it's defined as a separate experiencer such that there seems to be a subject experiencing and an object being experienced. This idea isn't necessary in order for experience to happen, only for it to be conceptualized and thought about, and so there's no problem with experience happening, or as I like to say, appearances appearing.

Conceptualizing a subject and object expands the potential of what can be experienced since now there is a personal relationship with the experience, giving it depth and meaning and drama and movement. There still isn't a problem with taking on this personal role as the individual subject of his own experience, since it's basically still true that a unique experience is appearing to you.

The difficulty comes when the question arises, 'who is this experience happening to?' The question is based on the assumption that if there is an apparently unique experience appearing, that it must be appearing to a unique experiencer, and this is where it all goes horribly wrong.

The function of creation is to imagine differences and form relationships between them, which leads to the movement of experience, so it's very natural to create/imagine that there is a separate experiencer with various defining attributes and a body and a mind with needs, want, fears, personal history and so on.

Now we have more than just a unique experience happening through a unique perspective, we apparently have someone to whom it is happening, and who is the beneficiary or victim of that experience, and now suffering becomes an inevitable part of the experience.

To address your question more directly, when the idea that there is a 'who' that experiences is questioned, the question naturally arises again, 'If this 'who' is not a mind/body, 'who is it really'? As was the case the first time the question was asked, which led to mind/body identification, the question is still an imaginary bifurcation for the purpose of creating more experiences, and in truth the question is not real. There can be no answer to what knows, sees, perceives because it's an attempt to create another imaginary relationship; (Awareness/Consciousness vs knowing or perceiving something)

I don't usually 'go there' the way Andrew sometimes does, since we're all still arguing over whether or not we have a little free will or a lot of free will (hehe) but that's the bottom line. It all collapses into what is appearing right here and now, and whatever the next thought or question is, is just more of what's appearing here and now. It's just THIS.

Great post, but.. speculation is not applicable to 'ISness'.. it's just another case of not being able to accept clarity on its own merits, another case of somebody believing their version or their story is superior to pure clarity.. generally, followed by well 'my' version IS clarity, or some other variation of the observer is not qualified to interpret Clarity, so "I" will tell you what to believe.. i really wish that the persons using their own freewill to tell other persons they don't have freewill would stop expecting the other persons they just told don't have freewill to use that freewill to choose to believe they don't have it.. whew!!!

Be well..

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


Great post, but.. speculation is not applicable to 'ISness'.. it's just another case of not being able to accept clarity on its own merits, another case of somebody believing their version or their story is superior to pure clarity.. generally, followed by well 'my' version IS clarity, or some other variation of the observer is not qualified to interpret Clarity, so "I" will tell you what to believe.. i really wish that the persons using their own freewill to tell other persons they don't have freewill would stop expecting the other persons they just told don't have freewill to use that freewill to choose to believe they don't have it.. whew!!!

Be well..

Whew! is right. That's quite a ride.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Great post, but.. speculation is not applicable to 'ISness'..

Hi Tzu,

How can you accuse of speculation someone who clearly said multiple times: "there's no ultimate truth" ?

When we are still, in 'ISness,' there's no persons, no bodies, no colors, no free will.

[hybrid]

and by a single twitch of our awareness, all appears again. gosh, it must be real slippery frictionless stuff.

Originally Posted by hybrid

and by a single twitch of our awareness, all appears again. gosh, it must be real slippery frictionless stuff.

Maybe the Ultimate Truth is......Teflon!

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Phroggy

I don't think relative truth can ever be seen that way since it is integral to functioning in life. It's only necessary to see that it's only meaningful within the context of life, that it's all conceptual and self defining and free floating, like a play on a stage, and can never say anything meaningful outside of that play as 'the play is the thing'.

when porto asked who is watching the play? andrew said there is something "prior". which to me is meaningful to say. and as you said somewhere else here, the problem arise when the question of who is watching the play is answered definitively, meaning to say the definitive answer becomes a part of the play.

so the infinite regressing nature of the play ensure that the "stage" is tightly closed so as to make the play truly realistic. the same way a theater is sound proof and silence is maintained at all times as to avoid distraction and maintain the illusion of the undergoing drama on stage.

There isn't something outside of what is imagined to be happening here. This is IT, but none of the stories are ultimately True. Nothing has any reality beyond the play itself, and so the idea of reality loses it's meaning.

to me this is an incomplete description of what's going on. there is a reality beyond the play. it's not outside as you have said and it was prior according to andrew. and porto is right on spot to imply that there must be a watcher of the play.

i placed this thing that is pointed out - beneath or under- all the play and drama that is happening. this is what i refer to as the absolute truth, relative truth being on the surface. i see reality as a balloon-like movement. at the core is a singularity that expands outward in all direction.

imagine that two points in the surface of the balloon will move away from each other as the balloon expands. this is how separation and multiplicity happens. but at the core of the balloon, this two points are originally and of the same thing. the core is the stillness while the entire balloon is the ishness. awareness of the surface only see the relatively of all (the surface only) but the awareness of the core see the entire balloon.


.

Greetings..

Originally Posted by Portto

How can you accuse of speculation someone who clearly said multiple times: "there's no ultimate truth" ?

Hi Portto: What?? help me understand how speculation and ultimate truth are related in the manner used in the quote.. yes, Phroggy has made reference to no ultimate truth and he has made reference to ultimate Truth, which is your favor? when dealing in theoretical concepts, oneness or no-persons, both based on 'if/then' speculation, there is no accountability for 'inaccurate.. and, somehow, it becomes acceptable to say (and, i am paraphrasing with 'poetic license' for effect) "i said it, it can't be proven, there is no evidence, so it must be right".. similar to the "realize there are no persons and suffering ends" claim.. i am requesting a 'return to sanity', through something as simple as 'isness'.. where people are encouraged to 'see for themselves', to set up the conditions most likely to reveal what 'is' and just see 'it' as what 'it is'.. and, it is my experienced opinion that 'stillness' is the best condition for clarity to see 'what is', and i am open for sincere dialogue if there are contrary opinions regarding better conditions.. what is easily observable is the continual rhetoric and instructing of what is or isn't so, such that the result is similar to indoctrination and conditioning..

Originally Posted by Portto

When we are still, in 'ISness,' there's no persons, no bodies, no colors, no free will.

You are correct. So, why is it necessary to go on and on about it.. rather, help people get to the conditions that allow for the realization of those self-evident understandings.. that IS the issue, that people want to be the guru that 'tells it like it is', which ironically, robs the experiencer of their own 'authentic' realization.. if we can help people to the place where they discover these understandings for themselves, it becomes 'real' and i mean real as in self-evident.. but the myriads of explanations and descriptions and expectations and the "no, you're wrong"s just trivialize what would have been a realization of epic proportions, to a 'whatever' entry in mind's so-and-so told me that.. even when so-and-so is Buddha, Jesus, McKenna, Katie, Tolle, and JT, the pimp.. because the 'You' is always a guru, and the you is always being 'told'.. or, more simply, seeing IS believing..

Be well..

Greetings..

Originally Posted by hybrid

i placed this thing that is pointed out - beneath or under- all the play and drama that is happening. this is what i refer to as the absolute truth, relative truth being on the surface. i see reality as a balloon-like movement. at the core is a singularity that expands outward in all direction.

imagine that two points in the surface of the balloon will move away from each other as the balloon expands. this is how separation and multiplicity happens. but at the core of the balloon, this two points are originally and of the same thing. the core is the stillness while the entire balloon is the ishness. awareness of the surface only see the relatively of all (the surface only) but the awareness of the core see the entire balloon.

Hi Hybrid: Nice! I have used a very similar analogy where the surface of the balloon is awareness intersecting possibility.. outside of the balloon is limitless potential, inside the balloon is 'reality', and the surface is 'creation'..

Be well..