Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 17:47:49 GMT -5
Except there is still the issue of those tricks of mind.....those mirages that at first have you convinced there is a lovely place out there where your thirst can be quenched, but of which you come to realize, there is no actual water....no actual means of quenching thirst.
The separate volitional person is just such a 'mirage.'
Yes, we still need a word, so it makes sense to use illusion as it's defined by the rest of the world. il·lu·sion "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses." Yup....let's just say:
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2019 17:49:10 GMT -5
Realization abides arising experience, not as a thought/idea held in mind, not as mind content at all, but as presence itself....there is abidance in being vs. abidance in mind, and what that means is that the surface conditions no longer have to be deemed perfect for the impetus to dance to arise. Dancing becomes a way of life. Your abidance in Being would be shattered in an instant if I stepped on your toe! Well, in your case it would be on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 26, 2019 17:56:50 GMT -5
Bingo. If there are appearances there is certainly time. Or to attempt to be even more hair-splittingly precise, nothing can be said to be happening, or there is no one to say that there is anything happening, or the very categories of 'is-ness,' 'happening,' 'appearance,' 'nothing,' 'anything,' and so on are false. You're so good at nullifying everything, I was certain you could nullify time. Though probly you do, by nullifying appearances, but the appearance of appearances is self evident. The appearance of appearances is not self-evident. Appearances appear to a subject who says "I." It is only to an I-sayer that appearances can be said to be self-evident. If the I-sayer isn't, then neither are appearances -- or time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 17:56:50 GMT -5
It's pretty wild hey, when laid out in black and white like that...? At least he is completely honest about the importance he assigns to that idea of 'existing.' Maybe with it right out here now, we can try to get to the bottom of precisely why that idea is given so much importance. No doubt there are other ideas that are gonna spool out as the thread gets tugged. All sorts of ideas concerned personal values....judgements....ideas about 'why' we're here, that kind of thing.
Yes, I really would like to be able to wrap my head around that idea. To him, it's literally a matter of life and death. Yes!
Seems some folks really cannot tolerate the idea of 'not knowing.' Some cannot feel at peace it seems with the idea of their existential questions going unanswered. Then again...I guess that kind of sums up the seeking drive itself, doesn't it?
In the case of needing to know, otherwise, you'd just roll up in a ball and refuse to engage, somewhere along the way, valuing life has become dependent upon possessing firm, fixed knowledge. I can't say even in my most deluded of moments that I've had reference for that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2019 18:03:34 GMT -5
You're so good at nullifying everything, I was certain you could nullify time. Though probly you do, by nullifying appearances, but the appearance of appearances is self evident. Correct! (hehe.... )
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2019 18:14:34 GMT -5
Okay, the context of saying that 'appearances are arising' is to say that 'something is actually happening'. This is central to what Fig and you have been saying. (In contrast to Sifting's approach which is 'nothing is happening') The point is that if something is actually happening, then there is time in some way. It's not 'time' as we have learned it, but is still time. If you experienced an appearance and then experienced another appearance, that's 'time'. And what I'm trying to say is nothing is actually happening. Andrew, E is 'doing' the blank white screen projector thingy with film projected on to the screen as life-events. Like a reflection in a mirror, nothing actual is taking place.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2019 18:22:03 GMT -5
Okay, the context of saying that 'appearances are arising' is to say that 'something is actually happening'. This is central to what Fig and you have been saying. (In contrast to Sifting's approach which is 'nothing is happening') The point is that if something is actually happening, then there is time in some way. It's not 'time' as we have learned it, but is still time. If you experienced an appearance and then experienced another appearance, that's 'time'. Bingo. If there are appearances there is certainly time. Or to attempt to be even more hair-splittingly precise, nothing can be said to be happening, or there is no one to say that there is anything happening, or the very categories of 'is-ness,' 'happening,' 'appearance,' 'nothing,' 'anything,' and so on are false. Back to the screen and projector and film. When the film is projected on the screen it appears to be happening in time. But if you stop the projector, time stops. Before you begging projection the whole film is laying there in a film can. The whole 2 hour film is laying there, motionless. When you put the film in the projector and turn on the switch, you have an appearance.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Aug 26, 2019 18:29:18 GMT -5
Bingo. If there are appearances there is certainly time. Or to attempt to be even more hair-splittingly precise, nothing can be said to be happening, or there is no one to say that there is anything happening, or the very categories of 'is-ness,' 'happening,' 'appearance,' 'nothing,' 'anything,' and so on are false. Back to the screen and projector and film. When the film is projected on the screen it appears to be happening in time. But if you stop the projector, time stops. Before you begging projection the whole film is laying there in a film can. The whole 2 hour film is laying there, motionless. When you put the film in the projector and turn on the switch, you have an appearance. Well this isn't quite what I'm talking about... but separately, I've enjoyed that metaphor in the past. However, like all metaphors, it runs into problems. If when the projector is stopped, time stops, then the projector could never be turned on... because that is an action, and thus requires a movement of time, but time is stopped.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2019 18:37:17 GMT -5
That's quite simple. If I thought nothing existed, I would lay still, until I died. (What alternative would there be)?To engage it anyway. Why does your interest in engaging 'the world' hinge upon you knowing it has 'existence'? Isn't it enough that stuff appears? Why do you have to know anything at all other than stuff IS appearing? When I was about 21-22 life essentially came to a halt because life ceased to MEAN anything. As analogy you could say all of life was like eating cardboard. That's what appearance means, mere appearance is like cardboard. Most people are satisfied with eating cardboard, with moving pictures on a screen. If I knew how to convey what I mean, in words, I would do so. But you see, each person has to reach this dilemma, within themselves. There is no way to artificially create the dilemma in another. See the dilemma?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2019 18:45:55 GMT -5
Back to the screen and projector and film. When the film is projected on the screen it appears to be happening in time. But if you stop the projector, time stops. Before you begging projection the whole film is laying there in a film can. The whole 2 hour film is laying there, motionless. When you put the film in the projector and turn on the switch, you have an appearance. Well this isn't quite what I'm talking about... but separately, I've enjoyed that metaphor in the past. However, like all metaphors, it runs into problems. If when the projector is stopped, time stops, then the projector could never be turned on... because that is an action, and thus requires a movement of time, but time is stopped. But I accept that some things actually exist. E and figgles deny anything actually exists, that everything is merely Consciousness. Everything is merely an appearance in Consciousness. My view is that it can become known what *things* are more real (actual) and which are completely not-actual. Most people live-through a warped psychology which cannot distinguish the *real* from the not-real. The body (hardware) is actual. Most of our psychology (software) is illusory. See, if someone's software tells them hardware does not exist, it's a software problem, not a hardware problem. It cannot be repaired from the outside, only from within.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2019 18:48:15 GMT -5
To engage it anyway. Why does your interest in engaging 'the world' hinge upon you knowing it has 'existence'? Isn't it enough that stuff appears? Why do you have to know anything at all other than stuff IS appearing? When I was about 21-22 life essentially came to a halt because life ceased to MEAN anything. As analogy you could say all of life was like eating cardboard. That's what appearance means, mere appearance is like cardboard. Most people are satisfied with eating cardboard, with moving pictures on a screen. If I knew how to convey what I mean, in words, I would do so. But you see, each person has to reach this dilemma, within themselves. There is no way to artificially create the dilemma in another. See the dilemma? Do you think that everyone reacts to the experience of finding the world meaningless in the same way? This reads like it was written by a cultural self. Do you really think that anyone who posts here isn't acquainted with this to some degree or another?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2019 19:05:09 GMT -5
When I was about 21-22 life essentially came to a halt because life ceased to MEAN anything. As analogy you could say all of life was like eating cardboard. That's what appearance means, mere appearance is like cardboard. Most people are satisfied with eating cardboard, with moving pictures on a screen. If I knew how to convey what I mean, in words, I would do so. But you see, each person has to reach this dilemma, within themselves. There is no way to artificially create the dilemma in another. See the dilemma? Do you think that everyone reacts to the experience of finding the world meaningless in the same way? This reads like it was written by a cultural self. Do you really think that anyone who posts here isn't acquainted with this to some degree or another? No, absolutely not. Almost all problems are software problems, that is, individual. No, probably almost everyone here has experienced meaninglessness
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2019 19:32:48 GMT -5
Do you think that everyone reacts to the experience of finding the world meaningless in the same way? This reads like it was written by a cultural self. Do you really think that anyone who posts here isn't acquainted with this to some degree or another? No, absolutely not. Almost all problems are software problems, that is, individual. No, probably almost everyone here has experienced meaninglessness o.k.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2019 19:36:36 GMT -5
No, absolutely not. Almost all problems are software problems, that is, individual. No, probably almost everyone here has experienced meaninglessness o.k. The key is not to find an illusory solution.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2019 19:44:53 GMT -5
The key is not to find an illusory solution. Every moment of life is filled with nonconceptual meaning that no idea or complex of ideas can ever touch. It's not really an emotion that describes what that's like, but the closest words can come to it is the poetry of profound awe, pathos, empathy, and joy. Settling for anything else is a gyp, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that someone else has no reference for that because of the story they tell or the way they try to express it.
|
|