|
Post by earnest on Sept 8, 2014 20:08:07 GMT -5
Do I see that there is an objective reality that I'm a part of? I'm not quite so sure about that anymore when I look at the direct experiencing. Right, that's what I took you to mean in the OP. The question was rather do you find that in general, the idea of being a part of an objective reality is a common one among other people? Re "the awareness that you are" - Pretty sure that's how he puts it So if the objects are made of awareness and you are the awareness then can you conclude anything by putting those two ideas together? 1 - Well they seem to act like they do.. 2 - That it's all the one thing - even though it appears to have separate interacting parts. That things are ok as they are. I could go on but it feels like I'd just be re-saying the same thing or restating what others have said.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 8, 2014 20:40:43 GMT -5
Right, that's what I took you to mean in the OP. The question was rather do you find that in general, the idea of being a part of an objective reality is a common one among other people? So if the objects are made of awareness and you are the awareness then can you conclude anything by putting those two ideas together? 1 - Well they seem to act like they do.. 2 - That it's all the one thing - even though it appears to have separate interacting parts. That things are ok as they are. I could go on but it feels like I'd just be re-saying the same thing or restating what others have said. So I'd conclude that now you see things differently than the objective reality consensus. If objects are made of the awareness that you are, then are the objects made of you? Do you have a sense that you're creating what appears to you? Would you agree that part of objective reality was the certainty that the objects that appear to you had an existence that's independent and apart from your awareness of them?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 8, 2014 21:38:34 GMT -5
1 - Well they seem to act like they do.. 2 - That it's all the one thing - even though it appears to have separate interacting parts. That things are ok as they are. I could go on but it feels like I'd just be re-saying the same thing or restating what others have said. So I'd conclude that now you see things differently than the objective reality consensus. If objects are made of the awareness that you are, then are the objects made of you? Do you have a sense that you're creating what appears to you? Would you agree that part of objective reality was the certainty that the objects that appear to you had an existence that's independent and apart from your awareness of them? Simultaneously, there is an external reality which we are in, and, which is in us. sdp
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 8, 2014 22:01:34 GMT -5
1 - Well they seem to act like they do.. 2 - That it's all the one thing - even though it appears to have separate interacting parts. That things are ok as they are. I could go on but it feels like I'd just be re-saying the same thing or restating what others have said. So I'd conclude that now you see things differently than the objective reality consensus. If objects are made of the awareness that you are, then are the objects made of you? I can see how the logic strings together, but that's not quite the experience. Thinking about it makes it less so though. Do you have a sense that you're creating what appears to you? Not really. Would you agree that part of objective reality was the certainty that the objects that appear to you had an existence that's independent and apart from your awareness of them? Yes, and that certainty isn't certain anymore. However if I make any kind of effort the separateness comes back. Thanks for the input and conversation btw.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 8, 2014 22:27:26 GMT -5
So I'd conclude that now you see things differently than the objective reality consensus. If objects are made of the awareness that you are, then are the objects made of you? Do you have a sense that you're creating what appears to you? Would you agree that part of objective reality was the certainty that the objects that appear to you had an existence that's independent and apart from your awareness of them? Simultaneously, there is an external reality which we are in, and, which is in us. sdp External to what?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 3:54:11 GMT -5
So I'd conclude that now you see things differently than the objective reality consensus. If objects are made of the awareness that you are, then are the objects made of you? I can see how the logic strings together, but that's not quite the experience. Thinking about it makes it less so though. Do you have a sense that you're creating what appears to you? Not really. Would you agree that part of objective reality was the certainty that the objects that appear to you had an existence that's independent and apart from your awareness of them? Yes, and that certainty isn't certain anymore. However if I make any kind of effort the separateness comes back. Your description of the inquiry relates an insight, a realization, and at the core of it is how you orient toward the objects that appear in your perception. From our dialog it seems that at one point in the past you had an assumption of the materiality of these objects that's now broken. Would you say that you were conscious of that assumption of materiality prior-to the inquiry? Now, perhaps this came into your consideration before the inquiry ... I'm not so concerned with the experience of the inquiry itself at this oint, but with the previous ongoing experience of an objective reality. When you took reality to be objective, by your recollection, were you conscious of that assumption? Thanks for the input and conversation btw. My pleasure sir!
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Sept 9, 2014 3:54:49 GMT -5
Simultaneously, there is an external reality which we are in, and, which is in us. sdp External to what? External to all body/mind organisms (none of which actually exist).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 3:58:37 GMT -5
So I'd conclude that now you see things differently than the objective reality consensus. If objects are made of the awareness that you are, then are the objects made of you? Do you have a sense that you're creating what appears to you? Would you agree that part of objective reality was the certainty that the objects that appear to you had an existence that's independent and apart from your awareness of them? Simultaneously, there is an external reality which we are in, and, which is in us. sdp Are the two the same?
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 9, 2014 6:47:41 GMT -5
Your description of the inquiry relates an insight, a realization, and at the core of it is how you orient toward the objects that appear in your perception. From our dialog it seems that at one point in the past you had an assumption of the materiality of these objects that's now broken. Would you say that you were conscious of that assumption of materiality prior-to the inquiry? Now, perhaps this came into your consideration before the inquiry ... I'm not so concerned with the experience of the inquiry itself at this oint, but with the previous ongoing experience of an objective reality. When you took reality to be objective, by your recollection, were you conscious of that assumption? Yep I was conscious of that assumption prior to the inquiry. I'd heard the idea that everything exists in awareness, but when I'd investigated it, it still seemed like objects were separate and independent. I would get occasional "flashes" of things not existing if they weren't in awareness, but there was a lot of thinking smothering the glimpses. I could test this with things like trying to see both sides of a coin. When I turn a coin over, one side vanishes as the other appears. This not being able to find things outside of awareness is part of "the weakening" that happened at the sig retreat in 2012. I can do an experiment now by closing my eyes, noticing awareness and what I can perceive visually (sparkly dark). When I open my eyes, objects burst forth and appear, but it's clear they are made of seeing, with that seeing coming from/out/in awareness, so the things in front of me, in my direct experience, are made of awareness. I'm not sure if I'd say it has been fully broken, but it's currently on much shakier ground
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 9, 2014 9:55:25 GMT -5
Simultaneously, there is an external reality which we are in, and, which is in us. sdp Are the two the same? I am in your external reality and you are in my external reality, so in a sense we are both in external reality. But POV is everything, so no, I am not in your internal reality and you are not in my internal reality. My senses and my psychology form a distorted, limited, representational copy of you, in me, and vice versa. J Krishnamurti explained all this very well, I don't interact with you, I interact with my image of you (made from my awareness, earnest), and vice versa. For it to be otherwise, we have to 'cleanse the doors of perception' (of ego), what J Krishnamurti called our fragmented self. sdp
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 10:51:53 GMT -5
Your description of the inquiry relates an insight, a realization, and at the core of it is how you orient toward the objects that appear in your perception. From our dialog it seems that at one point in the past you had an assumption of the materiality of these objects that's now broken. Would you say that you were conscious of that assumption of materiality prior-to the inquiry? Now, perhaps this came into your consideration before the inquiry ... I'm not so concerned with the experience of the inquiry itself at this oint, but with the previous ongoing experience of an objective reality. When you took reality to be objective, by your recollection, were you conscious of that assumption? Yep I was conscious of that assumption prior to the inquiry. I'd heard the idea that everything exists in awareness, but when I'd investigated it, it still seemed like objects were separate and independent. I would get occasional "flashes" of things not existing if they weren't in awareness, but there was a lot of thinking smothering the glimpses. I could test this with things like trying to see both sides of a coin. When I turn a coin over, one side vanishes as the other appears. This not being able to find things outside of awareness is part of "the weakening" that happened at the sig retreat in 2012. I can do an experiment now by closing my eyes, noticing awareness and what I can perceive visually (sparkly dark). When I open my eyes, objects burst forth and appear, but it's clear they are made of seeing, with that seeing coming from/out/in awareness, so the things in front of me, in my direct experience, are made of awareness. I'm not sure if I'd say it has been fully broken, but it's currently on much shakier ground Are you conscious now then of the new assumption that's replaced the old one?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 10:54:03 GMT -5
I am in your external reality and you are in my external reality, so in a sense we are both in external reality. But POV is everything, so no, I am not in your internal reality and you are not in my internal reality. My senses and my psychology form a distorted, limited, representational copy of you, in me, and vice versa. J Krishnamurti explained all this very well, I don't interact with you, I interact with my image of you (made from my awareness, earnest), and vice versa. For it to be otherwise, we have to 'cleanse the doors of perception' (of ego), what J Krishnamurti called our fragmented self. sdp So in terms of this: Simultaneously, there is an external reality which we are in, and, which is in us. ... the version of "external reality which is in us" is a limited version?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 9, 2014 11:56:43 GMT -5
I am in your external reality and you are in my external reality, so in a sense we are both in external reality. But POV is everything, so no, I am not in your internal reality and you are not in my internal reality. My senses and my psychology form a distorted, limited, representational copy of you, in me, and vice versa. J Krishnamurti explained all this very well, I don't interact with you, I interact with my image of you (made from my awareness, earnest), and vice versa. For it to be otherwise, we have to 'cleanse the doors of perception' (of ego), what J Krishnamurti called our fragmented self. sdp So in terms of this: Simultaneously, there is an external reality which we are in, and, which is in us. ... the version of "external reality which is in us" is a limited version? Necessarily so. Only Supreme Ordering Intelligence is aware of everything, even every sparrow that falls......... sdp
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 12:03:48 GMT -5
So in terms of this: ... the version of "external reality which is in us" is a limited version? Necessarily so. Only Supreme Ordering Intelligence is aware of everything, even every sparrow that falls......... sdp Well then, in terms of this: Simultaneously, there is an external reality which we are in, and, which is in us. ... what's the difference between the "external reality" you assert and the objective reality based on the materialist assumption? SOI, is one obvious difference, but is there anything other than that?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2014 13:34:20 GMT -5
External to all body/mind organisms (none of which actually exist). But the external reality does?
|
|