|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 11:35:24 GMT -5
It cannot be an 'object' of awareness. There CAN be self awareness. 'Brain' appears as an object to a subject. It cannot be prior to the subject. (source of subjectivity) It is awareness that is aware. Awareness is not prior to itself, it's prior to everything of which it is aware, which includes brains. I agree that if there is a 'that' from which stuff arises that there can be no awareness of it, that's coz its not a thing. I also agree there can be self-awareness. 'Brain' appears as IF its an object to a subject, because it appears as IF there IS a subject. It can all be neti neti'd. To be clearerer, there isn't 'a subject'. There is subjectivity. That subjectivity cannot be neti-neti'd. You cannot deny your own beingness. This is the reason for neti-neti'ing; to arrive at that which cannot be disappeared. There is no such thing as "an awareness".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 11:37:26 GMT -5
It need not be a hypothesis, but it is also not a matter of logic or proof. Awareness is prior to whatever arises in awareness. IOW, awareness is obviously prior to anything awareness is aware of. Conversely, awareness cannot appear as the object of awareness. It must be the subject. This radical subjectivity leads to various hypotheses as to how it arises and whether it may come from a lamp post or a brain or whatever. The fact of your awareness is already the ground of the universe and of existence prior to universe. No idea is true. That's why it's not a hypothetical matter of logic or proof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 11:40:24 GMT -5
Of course these statements are subject to 'having' a brain... It's pretty hard to substantiate awareness as subject if one doesn't possess a brain. You don't need a brain to think or a body to perceive. if it appears that way, then that's just how it appears. ***Rolling on the floor laughing so as to create the illusion of being a body with a brain*** That's just the mind believing the thought that we don't need a brain to think or a body to perceive. It's the mind/brain projecting a perspective outside of itself to justify it's own concepts of what lays outside of itself. And then the mind/brain says that it doesn't need 'itself' for that perspective to exist. That's not absurd at all...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 11:45:18 GMT -5
That's why it's not a hypothetical matter of logic or proof. Because something is a hypothesis doesn't mean it will necessarily be proven or disproven. That is an idea. If believed, it's a belief. You can call it an "expression of mind being informed by realization" too. It could be called a hypothesis. Whatev. It can't be known. What you are stating is knowledge. I'm just saying that you're knowledge can not be known, which is a bit contradictory. You try and slip out of the contradiction by giving the special escape clause of realization. Maybe that will make sense to me some day, but not right now. The conclusion -- -- is unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 11:45:50 GMT -5
It need not be a hypothesis, but it is also not a matter of logic or proof. Awareness is prior to whatever arises in awareness. IOW, awareness is obviously prior to anything awareness is aware of. Conversely, awareness cannot appear as the object of awareness. It must be the subject. This radical subjectivity leads to various hypotheses as to how it arises and whether it may come from a lamp post or a brain or whatever. The fact of your awareness is already the ground of the universe and of existence prior to universe. Perhaps a lobotomy would be in order to see if your subjectivity would remain intact... Better hurry. There are several peeps lined up to shoot me and steal my stuff because I'm 'just an illusion' and a few more ready to make me walk off a cliff because I have no volition.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 11:54:06 GMT -5
I agree that if there is a 'that' from which stuff arises that there can be no awareness of it, that's coz its not a thing. I also agree there can be self-awareness. 'Brain' appears as IF its an object to a subject, because it appears as IF there IS a subject. It can all be neti neti'd. To be clearerer, there isn't 'a subject'. There is subjectivity. That subjectivity cannot be neti-neti'd. You cannot deny your own beingness. This is the reason for neti-neti'ing; to arrive at that which cannot be disappeared. There is no such thing as "an awareness". The word 'subjectivity' there (or 'radical subjectivity', or 'absolute subjectivity') is just a pointer, its not meant to be imply subjective/objective. Its all questionable (even this). People may start off doing neti neti wanting to arrive at something that cannot be disappeared, but it does not end that way exactly. It does seem as if you do think there is some kind of 'evidence' that there is something foundational. At most its a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 11:56:21 GMT -5
You don't need a brain to think or a body to perceive. if it appears that way, then that's just how it appears. ***Rolling on the floor laughing so as to create the illusion of being a body with a brain*** That's just the mind believing the thought that we don't need a brain to think or a body to perceive. It's the mind/brain projecting a perspective outside of itself to justify it's own concepts of what lays outside of itself. And then the mind/brain says that it doesn't need 'itself' for that perspective to exist. That's not absurd at all... The idea that mind is believing is that a brain and body are needed for experience to happen. It doesn't know that idea to be true, but it acts as though it does and dismisses any contradiction as 'just a belief'. Mind is a wascally critter. Mind and body are 'inside' the experience, obviously. YOU cannot be. You are 'in the world, but not of it'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 12:01:26 GMT -5
That's why it's not a hypothetical matter of logic or proof. Because something is a hypothesis doesn't mean it will necessarily be proven or disproven. That is an idea. If believed, it's a belief. You can call it an "expression of mind being informed by realization" too. It could be called a hypothesis. Whatev. It can't be known. What you are stating is knowledge. I'm just saying that you're knowledge can not be known, which is a bit contradictory. You try and slip out of the contradiction by giving the special escape clause of realization. Maybe that will make sense to me some day, but not right now. It's not a matter of making sense either, though it will also not lead to confusion, contradiction or paradox.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 27, 2013 19:01:47 GMT -5
He was running them off the cliff. Hard to turn back at some point. I reckon you're past it; might as well get'er over with! hehe Aaah yes, the willingness! hehe I wonder if it straightens out for the swan dive, just prior to the awaited impact. Probly not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 23:44:52 GMT -5
That the question is misconceived! And this conclusion is based on another conclusion (for example, 'there are no people') But there are people. They are just not real, appearance only. Can you explain what you mean by this? Isn't this pretty much what you've been arguing against when E and I speak about people being appearance only.....an arising to/within Being?
Have you changed your view from when you wrote this?
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping34 on Aug 27, 2019 14:16:12 GMT -5
But there are people. They are just not real, appearance only. Can you explain what you mean by this? Isn't this pretty much what you've been arguing against when E and I speak about people being appearance only.....an arising to/within Being?
Have you changed your view from when you wrote this?
I feel like I check this site once a year and it’s the same people arguing the same points. 😂 Makes it feel like I haven’t missed a thing!! It a great case study of the mind and how it rarely changes once the programming is set. Good to see you, reef, and enigma are still churning out material for us!!! Keep up the mental sparring!!!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2019 18:10:08 GMT -5
Can you explain what you mean by this? Isn't this pretty much what you've been arguing against when E and I speak about people being appearance only.....an arising to/within Being?
Have you changed your view from when you wrote this?
I feel like I check this site once a year and it’s the same people arguing the same points. 😂 Makes it feel like I haven’t missed a thing!! It a great case study of the mind and how it rarely changes once the programming is set. Good to see you, reef, and enigma are still churning out material for us!!! Keep up the mental sparring!!! C U next year.
|
|