Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 11:18:01 GMT -5
It is an inquiry as to what is was that caused you to reply, what processes motivated you.. it's a fairly simple question if you're not over-thinking it.. and, if you're not interested in answering, just say so.. You need to ask this question to laughter, not to me, I just said 'Absolutely' because I had the same feeling when I read your post as laughter explains. if you're not interested in answering, just say so..If so, I wouldn't have replied to you, why would I reply to your post if I am not interested?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 11:23:07 GMT -5
Since you believe past is imagined in present, many obvious becomes unnoticed. What we call outer world is very stable, it wouldn't change it's structure if you are not there or other individual comes and changes. Note : Outer world and inner world appears in our consciousness(awareness in your term). Outer world focuses are shared focuses by others, so if you take your pen from your desk it would not be there for other person as well, if he takes it away it wouldn't be available to you. Why do you create a barrier between inner/outer when there is none, it's imagined.. Both are appearing in your consciousness, but inner focus is not shared one, outer focus is the shared one with others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 11:32:31 GMT -5
I haven't understood this question. Intent is not the same idea as volition, and neither is the same idea as will or determination. Yes Intent is not, but if we look into the intent and it's fulfillment, it would reveal the truth that When we use Reality creation technique to achieve our fulfillment,our fulfillment towards our intent must have been started even before it comes to our mind. So it would prove the preexisting flow. For an example, you would like to meet a person, now you start to use affirmation or visualization or any other reality creation technique you wish. for an example, the date you started is 01/06/2014 and you are meeting this person at 01/08/20114, now if you ask to this person(whom you would liked to meet) he would be telling you that he had started towards your place at 01/01/2014. Now this becomes clear the intention you set to meet him is part of the overall movement of universe, because the movement toward him was started even before the intention comes to your mind. So it proves the illusion of freewill and existence of predetermination.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2014 13:04:24 GMT -5
Intent is not the same idea as volition, and neither is the same idea as will or determination. Yes Intent is not, but if we look into the intent and it's fulfillment, it would reveal the truth that When we use Reality creation technique to achieve our fulfillment,our fulfillment towards our intent must have been started even before it comes to our mind. So it would prove the preexisting flow. For an example, you would like to meet a person, now you start to use affirmation or visualization or any other reality creation technique you wish. for an example, the date you started is 01/06/2014 and you are meeting this person at 01/08/20114, now if you ask to this person(whom you would liked to meet) he would be telling you that he had started towards your place at 01/01/2014. Now this becomes clear the intention you set to meet him is part of the overall movement of universe, because the movement toward him was started even before the intention comes to your mind. So it proves the illusion of freewill and existence of predetermination. Sorry man, I can't offer you any intellectual counter-proof that will really be of any use -- which isn't to say that I couldn't offer you a decent debate on the question from the other side. All I can say at this point is that any ideological certainty such as this is worth questioning, and while questioning one set of ideas directly with ideas in opposite can have some value, what has more value is nonconceptual contemplation.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Dec 20, 2014 20:33:00 GMT -5
Hey Enigma, nice to see you keeping the pointers oriented in the proper direction! The 'dream' can get amazingly busy at times - without any garden in sight. **Scurrying around trying to keep all the arrows pointed toward Nirvana** Such accurate pointers should quickly increase the number of believers. But are they pointing towards realizations, or experiences?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 11:40:30 GMT -5
I can understand sense-perception as needing feedback. Like how seeing/vision requires saccades, at the very least -- continuous automatic eye movement -- to constantly provide feedback so that what is seen is constantly refreshed or kept in view. Without the saccade the object in view would fade away. The kettle would disappear from view without saccades. So without saccade the kettle would be an empty senseperception. With the saccades the kettle would be a senseperception. Am I getting you right there?Seems to me a mantra could be an empty thought. Concentrated on over and over, focused on and attended to, that it just disappears. No no, you got me wrong. I am directly coming to the consciousness as our base, everything else is appearing in our consciousness, this inner appearance we usually call 'thought' and outer world appearance we usually call 'perception', but I don't have any difference because everything appears in our consciousness so let me call by the world 'thought'(could be inner world perception or outer world perception), there is no outer world in itself. Now what's this feedback? Feed back is nothing but a thought is tellling about other thought. When you are perceiving a kettle, you are experiencing a 'kettle thought' and another thought would come and tell you that's kettle or something else about kettle, this is what I would like to call feed back, there is same kind of thought is being repeated again and again without feed back thought in deep sleep(it would be like what you are experiencing or perceiving when you close your eyes), without announcing where you are, Or what are you looking at. Hope it would be clear now. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Sounds to me like what you are describing is what Tzujanli refers to as still mind and ZD calls attending the actual (minus thought) (ATA-MT).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 12:32:24 GMT -5
No no, you got me wrong. I am directly coming to the consciousness as our base, everything else is appearing in our consciousness, this inner appearance we usually call 'thought' and outer world appearance we usually call 'perception', but I don't have any difference because everything appears in our consciousness so let me call by the world 'thought'(could be inner world perception or outer world perception), there is no outer world in itself. Now what's this feedback? Feed back is nothing but a thought is tellling about other thought. When you are perceiving a kettle, you are experiencing a 'kettle thought' and another thought would come and tell you that's kettle or something else about kettle, this is what I would like to call feed back, there is same kind of thought is being repeated again and again without feed back thought in deep sleep(it would be like what you are experiencing or perceiving when you close your eyes), without announcing where you are, Or what are you looking at. Hope it would be clear now. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Sounds to me like what you are describing is what Tzujanli refers to as still mind and ZD calls attending the actual (minus thought) (ATA-MT). No one can know what's happening in our deep sleep, but even in deep sleep consciousness can't loose it's perception conclusion comes from our real world perception, because perceiver can't be separated from perceived, perceiver is the inherent part of the perception, Perception hold the perceiver as it's aspect, other wise perception is meaningless. Perception and perceiver is one single thing, not two separate thing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2014 19:00:02 GMT -5
What I'm calling Intelligence doesn't sleep. You are playing with words now, I admit Intelligence never sleeps, what I say 'sleeping' is equal to saying 'intelligent perceives nothing'. So When you sleep, intelligence perceive nothing isn't it? If so, how is this intelligent finds the way to get back to the waking world? where is the reference? Because you have already admitted that Intelligent continues it's creation from within it's own creation,Isn't it? You have this idea that the next thought is created from the present thought.You can't see thought arising spontaneously, so you're left with the conundrum of how thought arises in the absence of thought. Even in the waking state, you're not slave to your previous thought. What I call Intelligence is what some call God, so you're being a bit liberal with the boundaries you place on it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2014 19:06:33 GMT -5
You're both talking about a personal God, and that's religion whether you declare it or not. I AM avoiding discussing it for the most part for the same reason I would avoid discussion with a Christian. Both your views are more intellectualized than Christian views, which is yet another reason to avoid them. Since you believe past is imagined in present, many obvious becomes unnoticed. What we call outer world is very stable, it wouldn't change it's structure if you are not there or other individual comes and changes. Note : Outer world and inner world appears in our consciousness(awareness in your term). Outer world focuses are shared focuses by others, so if you take your pen from your desk it would not be there for other person as well, if he takes it away it wouldn't be available to you. Does your post relate to mine in some way that I'm not seeing now?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2014 19:10:33 GMT -5
Not by my definition. Awareness, as I'm talking about it, is prior to perception, and can therefore be empty. I think this contradiction never comes to an end between you and me. To me perception holds the perceiver as it's own part. I dunno what that means.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2014 19:13:31 GMT -5
If it were that simple, everybody would get what they intend to get. Haven't you used Law of attraction to create something in your life? Of course, intention creates the reality without fail, I am not going to say I could change the rotation of earth in opposite direction using Law of attraction or I am not going to say I could defy the gravity power of earth using Law of attraction, but we could create our experience inevitably with others.But this creations moves between it's polarity. Quite obviously it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2014 22:37:00 GMT -5
**Scurrying around trying to keep all the arrows pointed toward Nirvana** Such accurate pointers should quickly increase the number of believers. But are they pointing towards realizations, or experiences? All's we can say fer sure is seek and ye shall find.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 13:41:03 GMT -5
You are playing with words now, I admit Intelligence never sleeps, what I say 'sleeping' is equal to saying 'intelligent perceives nothing'. So When you sleep, intelligence perceive nothing isn't it? If so, how is this intelligent finds the way to get back to the waking world? where is the reference? Because you have already admitted that Intelligent continues it's creation from within it's own creation,Isn't it? You have this idea that the next thought is created from the present thought.You can't see thought arising spontaneously, so you're left with the conundrum of how thought arises in the absence of thought. Even in the waking state, you're not slave to your previous thought.
What I call Intelligence is what some call God, so you're being a bit liberal with the boundaries you place on it. It's not my idea, but it's yours.Isn't it? Haven't you said that creation continues within creation? Dream continues within Dream? I am not slave to the previous thought, you meant to say thought need not to follow the previous thought? spontaneous expression may continue from somewhere else rather than continuing from the previous thought? But still you haven't answered my question, when you are coming back to waking state how did you awareness knows to generate the bed room appearance? why not it creates the appearance of something else? what is the one which keeps the track?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 13:44:14 GMT -5
Since you believe past is imagined in present, many obvious becomes unnoticed. What we call outer world is very stable, it wouldn't change it's structure if you are not there or other individual comes and changes. Note : Outer world and inner world appears in our consciousness(awareness in your term). Outer world focuses are shared focuses by others, so if you take your pen from your desk it would not be there for other person as well, if he takes it away it wouldn't be available to you. Does your post relate to mine in some way that I'm not seeing now? What?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 13:45:19 GMT -5
I think this contradiction never comes to an end between you and me. To me perception holds the perceiver as it's own part. I dunno what that means. Ok, leave it, it's not important, we both can't reach to the conclusion of perceiver and perceived, because we have already had a different opinion.
|
|