|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:04:08 GMT -5
The one you spoke of was so distorted by the giraffe that I just left it where it was. I just explained why it wasn't a giraffe given the choice point I was describing. The giraffe wasn't about the difference between the choice I suggested you left out, it was that I'd ever suggested the not-knower's didn't understand what you've been saying. You described the choice point, in terms of the giraffe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 10:04:10 GMT -5
I am pretty much using the terms synonymously there, but if we are going to distinguish, I would say it can very much be 'experienced' as well as 'seen' in the way you mean it. I only mean it isn't seen like, I see a rainbow, but seen like 'Oh, I see'. "To be the Self is the same as seeing the Self." ~ Ramana.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:05:31 GMT -5
I just explained why it wasn't a giraffe given the choice point I was describing. The giraffe wasn't about the difference between the choice I suggested you left out, it was that I'd ever suggested the not-knower's didn't understand what you've been saying. You described the choice point, in terms of the giraffe. Then it's your giraffe in this case, because what you highlighted was the 'not engaging in the first place'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:06:05 GMT -5
Who's this " we", kemosabe? No, not a dwad: the distinction is between an explanation for the appearance of objectivity based on the assumption of an objective reality, or based on a subjective consensus. Subjective consensus only need involve the assumption of a shared commonality between perspectives, but the shared commonality need not be a reality existing independently, outside of the perspectives. Also, the idea of objective reality implies not only an independent existence of that reality outside of the perspectives, but also, that the reality of the perspectives arises within and as dependent upon that outside objective reality, which is usually defined in terms of the senses, and taken to be material in nature. Objective appearances based on the potential for subjective consensus don't involve any of those characteristics: (1) a reality independent of the subjective perspectives (2) an inner/outer boundary between the subjective perspectives and that reality (3) that the reality is defined by the senses (4) that the perspectives arise within and as dependent upon that reality I can understand how it might seem like a dwad to you, but there is a substantial modern culture of philosophy that tries to account for the metaphysical result of the collapse of the material assumption, and this is one of the ways they go about that. Also, mushin is action with a quiescent mind, regardless of belief. Also, it's possible to question and suspend all belief in an objective reality, especially while seeking, but still engage with physical appearances and the appearance of other people, in terms that appear to be objective. Unfortunately everything you said there confirmed to me the dwaddling nature of what you first said. I'm happy to agree to disagree though You can dismiss it as a dwad if you like, but the substance of the differences implicated by the distinction are there to be engaged with. I have no belief in any objective reality.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:06:55 GMT -5
Unfortunately everything you said there confirmed to me the dwaddling nature of what you first said. I'm happy to agree to disagree though You can dismiss it as a dwad if you like, but the substance of the differences implicated by the distinction are there to be engaged with. I have no belief in any objective reality. I know you do So in this case we will have to agree to disagree as to the contents of your mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:07:37 GMT -5
The giraffe wasn't about the difference between the choice I suggested you left out, it was that I'd ever suggested the not-knower's didn't understand what you've been saying. You described the choice point, in terms of the giraffe. Then it's your giraffe in this case, because what you highlighted was the 'not engaging in the first place'. Incorrect. Regard what was underlined.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:08:09 GMT -5
You can dismiss it as a dwad if you like, but the substance of the differences implicated by the distinction are there to be engaged with. I have no belief in any objective reality. I know you do So in this case we will have to agree to disagree as to the contents of your mind. And yours.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:12:59 GMT -5
I know you do So in this case we will have to agree to disagree as to the contents of your mind. And yours. You think I don't know that you have a belief in an objective reality? I guess that is possible, but my conviction that you have a belief in an objective reality is solid (and therefore also that you don't understand your own belief structure well)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:15:43 GMT -5
Then it's your giraffe in this case, because what you highlighted was the 'not engaging in the first place'. Incorrect. Regard what was underlined. Then the two sentences sit quite oddly next to each other, my assumption was that the second would have direct relation to the first.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:16:55 GMT -5
Then the two sentences sit quite oddly next to each other, I disagreeumption was that the second would have direct relation to the first. True, they're two completely independent points. I'm actually quite delighted that you find that presentation to be odd.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:17:48 GMT -5
And yours. You think I don't know that you have a belief in an objective reality? I guess that is possible, but my conviction that you have a belief in an objective reality is solid (and therefore also that you don't understand your own belief structure well) No, that's not what I meant. Want to know what I did mean?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:19:44 GMT -5
Then the two sentences sit quite oddly next to each other, I disagreeumption was that the second would have direct relation to the first. True, they're two completely independent points. I'm actually quite delighted that you find that presentation to be odd. okie dokie, but for the sake of clarity, that's what paragraphs are usually for.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 6, 2018 10:20:24 GMT -5
''The relationship between ourself and our body is similar to the relationship between gold and a gold ornament. Just as gold is the one substance of which the ornament is made, so we are the one substance of which our body and all the other objects of this world are made''.
''Since everything other than our own consciousness is just a figment of our imagination, our consciousness alone is real, and hence it is the one true substance of which other things are formed'' .
Ramana ..
I might not agree entirely with all that is said here or how it is put across, but the key words I have been using seem to be present and inline with what I have been speaking of .
Again I don't know what the problem is with such key words used .
This is why when peeps speak of the appearance of the mind-body and consciousness and such likes I speak about there is only Self as ramana speaks about consciousness .
There is a real foundation regardless, there is a substance regardless and it is real or not, you can't mix it up and for examples sake say consciousness isn't real and yet the monkey is or vice versa .
If consciousness is the real foundation and the only real substance then what appears is of that real substance, like ramana said about the gold ornament .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:20:55 GMT -5
You think I don't know that you have a belief in an objective reality? I guess that is possible, but my conviction that you have a belief in an objective reality is solid (and therefore also that you don't understand your own belief structure well) No, that's not what I meant. Want to know what I did mean? No, but it would be useful if your writing was clearer the first time you say something (if possible). That's two examples of poor communication.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:21:19 GMT -5
True, they're two completely independent points. I'm actually quite delighted that you find that presentation to be odd. okie dokie, but for the sake of clarity, that's what paragraphs are usually for. For the sake of clarity, it's better simply to see a giraffe, as a giraffe.
|
|