--- In [email protected], "endlessrainintoapapercup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > And what difference is there between > > > > > > paths to enlightenment? There is > > > > > > One Reality which is known or not > > > > > > known. This Reality is all that is. > > > > > > > > > > Well I know some would agree with such an absolute > > > > > statement. > > > > > But no, don't believe that there is One reality that is all > > > > > there is. But absolutists do believe that. > > > > > > > > I don't know what "absolutists" > > > > say and believe, but I question > > > > what is absolute about the statement > > > > that there is one reality. > > > > The very language implies that there is ONLY one > > reality. This is patently obvious, because, as > > Maharishi said so often, "Knowledge is structured > > in consciousness." Same object of perception, dif- > > ferent realities. > > > > If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees > > one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, > > another. And then you move on to the more interest- > > ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, > > one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, > > also dual but with one aspect of the duality more > > lively. From UC, still another. > > All these states and experiences are > contained within the whole of reality. > You are arguing that the individual > trees exist, but not the forest.
I am merely stating that if your metaphor is that the forest represents "reality," the forest does not have the ability to perceive the forest. So the concept of "reality" is unprovable. If you claim that you can perceive it, there is still a "you." If you claim that you have transcended "you," there is no one there TO perceive. Thus "reality" is an empty concept.
