|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2019 2:32:55 GMT -5
Why are you not answering my question?
You see this is why it's difficult to talk to you anymore because you don't answer straight forward questions about your model and at times when I do engage with you, you just fob me off without explaining yourself ..
Not sure why you bother to be honest ..
In answer to your question however, what you are is conscious and aware .. The self is what you are of the mind .. it's a term used because what you are is aware of what you are that is of the mind ..
There is no self beyond mind because the mind is required to be present in order for that to be experienced .
When you speak about awareness of the mind you want to shove self aside, but all you are doing is swapping self for awareness and it doesn't work. The problem is that you have assigned what we are to being awareness and that is just a theory you have that self (as what you are) has concluded of the mind. Again, the fact that you don't like it is not my concern. My spider sense tells me your here to stir trouble and not actually answer questions about your model . All you are doing is avoiding answering my question and telling me how I don't like your model .. Well I don't agree with it, that's a certain, I mean it makes no sense and you don't explain yourself .. Your theory about there being an experiencer and no witness leaves me thinking wtf you talking about .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2019 2:36:14 GMT -5
There is awareness of the mind for sure, you can entertain a theory that it is a dream world if you like. This is not something you have realized, but you are welcome to your own theory .. I realized what I am so to speak but there was no thought that I AM awareness .. Is what you are present right here and now, or is it hidden from view again? What I am is here and now, it has never been hidden from view . It's the only view there is.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2019 2:43:54 GMT -5
.. Like said, I agree there is awareness present of the mind environment, but what you are doing is passing what you are off as awareness. This is not realized. So you are making a theory up about what you are then you are adding qualities to awareness. The same qualities that you assign to awareness that are movements of it. It creates a conceptual mess when questioned just like your model of consciousness did and the walking dream characters did .. You say you want to simplify but your not .. You just coming up with something about something that wasn't realized . I have suggested that there is no consciousness or awareness beyond mind because there was nothing realized beyond mind that gives one the impression that there is .. So unless you speak to me about your realization that awareness is what you are then, your theory remains your theory as does mine ..I can't say what I AM if I have never realized that, can you? I thought I was being extraordinarily clear that Awareness is what I am. You have been clear on that yes . What is not clear is the realization of that . Again all you do is answer one line of my post and leave out the juicy bits .. If you don't want to answer that's fine, but it doesn't make sense for you to interject with my post's to other's and then not reply to my questions in return .. If you don't want to answer my questions, please don't respond to my posts ..
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 7, 2019 4:17:39 GMT -5
Sure, or an atom. Sounds good. Well it's a direct apprehension thing. But what if I say I perceive Awareness itself as vibrant, and luminous, (divinely so, I spose), rather than being dull, and inert.
I should probably warn you I'm only one step away from talking about divine dog dodo, hehe
The way it reads to me is, in the dream, you know what constitutes aliveness, rocks don't qualify (and I assume by contrast other people do). But can't distinguish if either a rock or a another person is a point of perception. Is that right? If I'm interpreting that correctly, I'll go on to ask what the difference is in the process by which you determine whether an appearance is alive or not, as opposed to being a point of perception or not.If you perceive qualities in what is essentially a pointer to nothingness, then I would suggest you are relating an experience (no doubt a spiritual experience) that is devoid of transcendent truth. Yes'Alive' has biological requirements defined within the context of form. A point of perception would be defined outside of form, as a part of the functioning of Consciousness itself. There's no reason dog dodo cannot be a point of perception, though perhaps the resulting experience wouldn't be sufficiently enticing, and it's likely that all intelligent creatures are POPs, but of course I'm just speculating about that.
I concede that what you say is irrefutable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 4:50:21 GMT -5
If you perceive qualities in what is essentially a pointer to nothingness, then I would suggest you are relating an experience (no doubt a spiritual experience) that is devoid of transcendent truth. Yes'Alive' has biological requirements defined within the context of form. A point of perception would be defined outside of form, as a part of the functioning of Consciousness itself. There's no reason dog dodo cannot be a point of perception, though perhaps the resulting experience wouldn't be sufficiently enticing, and it's likely that all intelligent creatures are POPs, but of course I'm just speculating about that.
I concede that what you say is irrefutable. That's it! Anyone who is genuinely interested to see the truth like you would definitely agree with us!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2019 5:04:03 GMT -5
what's the link/connection between the quality of being aware/conscious in the dream, and awareness beyond the dream? I'm sometimes criticized for mixing contexts in my usage of capitals when discussing Awareness and Consciousness. The reason it seems that way is that individuated awareness and consciousness is not other than Awareness and Consciousness, though sometimes we want to talk about them as a whole, and sometimes talk about them as they express in the individuation. Depending on the point I'm trying to make, they may be exactly the same. The awareness/consciousness you are experiencing now is the Awareness/Consciousness you seek. This is one reason I'm not big on practices designed to help you find it. It's by the grace of Awareness that you can even seek Awareness. Right, I agree that the awareness/consciousness that I experience now, is the same Awareness/Consciousness that is sought. And personally, I can shift attention in such way that I can experientially notice what seems to be personal awareness/consciousness, and I can experientially notice impersonal awareness/consciousness. AND, I would suggest that 'the personal' can be realized to ultimately be an illusion, and impersonal awareness/consciousness is therefore real/true/actual. Agree?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 5:04:24 GMT -5
I concede that what you say is irrefutable. That's it! Anyone who is genuinely interested to see the truth like you would definitely agree with us! .. And there you go assuming that there's an us.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2019 5:07:09 GMT -5
'emptiness' means that phenomena [that we experience] have no inherent nature by themselves. I still don't get it. Are you saying 'Truth' is prior to/beyond form? So you can't look to experience to realize 'Truth'? I'm talking about empty of Truth. I mean that nothing within the dream can reveal a transcendent truth; So there are transcenndent truths to be revealed beyond the dream? Or there are no transcendent truths at all? if there are transcendent truths to be revealed, how do they differ from what I called 'realizing of Truth'? Can you tell me some?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2019 5:14:00 GMT -5
Sure, or an atom. Sounds good. Well it's a direct apprehension thing. But what if I say I perceive Awareness itself as vibrant, and luminous, (divinely so, I spose), rather than being dull, and inert.
I should probably warn you I'm only one step away from talking about divine dog dodo, hehe
The way it reads to me is, in the dream, you know what constitutes aliveness, rocks don't qualify (and I assume by contrast other people do). But can't distinguish if either a rock or a another person is a point of perception. Is that right? If I'm interpreting that correctly, I'll go on to ask what the difference is in the process by which you determine whether an appearance is alive or not, as opposed to being a point of perception or not.If you perceive qualities in what is essentially a pointer to nothingness, then I would suggest you are relating an experience (no doubt a spiritual experience) that is devoid of transcendent truth. Yes'Alive' has biological requirements defined within the context of form. A point of perception would be defined outside of form, as a part of the functioning of Consciousness itself. There's no reason dog dodo cannot be a point of perception, though perhaps the resulting experience wouldn't be sufficiently enticing, and it's likely that all intelligent creatures are POPs, but of course I'm just speculating about that.
Is this 'Consciousness' the same 'consciousness' i.e it's the context we just discussed? Or is this a different context of Consciousness? If different, what do you mean by it? Is this a 3 layer model here? Consciousness, POP, and dog dodo? Or are you saying that a POP is an appearance/form, just as the dog dodo is? It sounds like a 3 layer model i.e a POP is ''defined outside of form, as a part of the functioning of Consciousness itself'' It will be easier to ask you about a 'POP' if I know you are using it as part of a 2 layer model or 3 layer model, and once I know about your usage of Consciousness here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 5:21:27 GMT -5
That's it! Anyone who is genuinely interested to see the truth like you would definitely agree with us! .. And there you go assuming that there's an us. The 'Us' includes me,Enigma,Figgles. We three have been arguing that other person existence can not be known!
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 7, 2019 5:23:54 GMT -5
I concede that what you say is irrefutable. That's it! Anyone who is genuinely interested to see the truth like you would definitely agree with us! I think half the people here reading what I wrote would interpret like you have, and the half would just give a wry smile. Which half you come down would tell us a lot about where you're at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 5:26:48 GMT -5
That's it! Anyone who is genuinely interested to see the truth like you would definitely agree with us! I think half the people here reading what I wrote would interpret like you have, and the half would just give a wry smile. Which half you come down would tell us a lot about where you're at. I just appreciate the genuine interest when Enigma was writing to you. He has written this line
And you replied "I concede that what you say is irrefutable."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 5:27:05 GMT -5
.. And there you go assuming that there's an us. The 'Us' includes me,Enigma,Figgles. We three have been arguing that other person existence can not be known!Yeah.. it's really really, really really really really, really really, understood what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 7, 2019 5:53:30 GMT -5
I think half the people here reading what I wrote would interpret like you have, and the half would just give a wry smile. Which half you come down would tell us a lot about where you're at. I just appreciate the genuine interest when Enigma was writing to you. He has written this line And you replied "I concede that what you say is irrefutable."
Ok thanks, yes there is genuine interest in what Enigma is saying, and in some respects I can relate to all of it. But we're approaching it differently, so to clarify, what I wrote was quite subtle and also intended to indicate we'd reached an impasse, rather than merely signify agreement as such. To be clear, there is no real room in my world for dog dodo as a point of perception. It's not something I'm open to. I'm not entirely convinced anyone is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 6:21:35 GMT -5
I just appreciate the genuine interest when Enigma was writing to you. He has written this line And you replied "I concede that what you say is irrefutable."
Ok thanks, yes there is genuine interest in what Enigma is saying, and in some respects I can relate to all of it. But we're approaching it differently, so to clarify, what I wrote was quite subtle and also intended to indicate we'd reached an impasse, rather than merely signify agreement as such. To be clear, there is no real room in my world for dog dodo as a point of perception. It's not something I'm open to. I'm not entirely convinced anyone is. That's okay. Argument is only possible for whether appearing another living being is a point of perception or not because that's what makes sense. But the point is, we can never know because actuality beyond the appearance can never be known. I can only assume other one is real no matter how convincing it is!
And I can see a kind of genuine interest in you while I am reading your post one after another. And I want to express my thanks for that.
|
|