|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2019 12:01:50 GMT -5
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. I mean to say a POP is included as part of creation. No layers or models involved. You can observe your own consciousness, point of perception and dodo without leaving your bathroom. (There's an example of an apparent context mix) as said above, I don't know what a POP is to you. Is it actual, like impersonal Awareness? Is it an appearance, like dog poop? But, I can't observe my 'POP'. I wouldn't know how to, or what it is. I can't feel it, see it, sense it. To me, a 'POP' is an abstract idea, it's not irrelevant as an abstract idea, but I wouldn't know how to observe it. What are you observing? Or...later thought....is a 'POP' synonymous with 'personal awareness'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 12:44:20 GMT -5
I mean to say a POP is included as part of creation. No layers or models involved. You can observe your own consciousness, point of perception and dodo without leaving your bathroom. (There's an example of an apparent context mix) as said above, I don't know what a POP is to you. Is it actual, like impersonal Awareness? Is it an appearance, like dog poop? But, I can't observe my 'POP'. I wouldn't know how to, or what it is. I can't feel it, see it, sense it. To me, a 'POP' is an abstract idea, it's not irrelevant as an abstract idea, but I wouldn't know how to observe it. What are you observing? Or...later thought....is a 'POP' synonymous with 'personal awareness'? spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/465260
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 12:51:07 GMT -5
Ultimately there is no us, as Oneness is the case. What is being assumed is that words on a screen correspond to actual points of perception, and it's a fair assumption. (I didn't care for the pic so much so I deleted it) What's the context for this? If POP's are actual, and personal awareness is illusion, then what is Impersonal Awareness? He's assuming that there is an individual behind the words that he reads. Such an individual is now known as the memetic phrase 'Point of perception'. To be identified as a POP, Awareness must be awake to itself through the body mind system that Enigma is currently engaged with. Once he's no longer engaged with it he can no longer be certain that it is still a POP, not that he could have been completely certain previously.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 18:18:14 GMT -5
Basically, yes, though personal and impersonal are really just contextual categories used in discussion, and as such aren't subject to the classification of illusion or actual. We could say the SVP is illusion and Awareness is actual, though even that's not true ultimately. There are a lot of terms, such as Self, witness, spirit, even Awareness and Consciousness that are typically used as pointers and if encountered often enough can come to be thought of as actual. What needs to be separated is the utility of language from the actuality of Oneness in which there are no conceptual layers between formlessness and form. Yes, though 'true' and 'ultimately' are also contextual categories. Everything we discuss here is a cotextual category, really, becayse we're always contrasting i.e measuring Okay, so if we go with the 'personal' awareness as illusion and 'impersonal' Awareness as actual. In this specific context, asking whether there are OTHER personal awarenesses would have to be misconceived, right? The question of whether there are other personal awarenesses could ONLY be asked from within the smaller (and false) context i.e the context of the 'personal'. I don't think personal awareness is illusion. You know that you are aware. The SVP is illusion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 18:20:55 GMT -5
Ultimately there is no us, as Oneness is the case. What is being assumed is that words on a screen correspond to actual points of perception, and it's a fair assumption. (I didn't care for the pic so much so I deleted it) What's the context for this? If POP's are actual, and personal awareness is illusion, then what is Impersonal Awareness? That in which the POP arises.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 18:31:00 GMT -5
I mean to say a POP is included as part of creation. No layers or models involved. You can observe your own consciousness, point of perception and dodo without leaving your bathroom. (There's an example of an apparent context mix) as said above, I don't know what a POP is to you. Is it actual, like impersonal Awareness? Is it an appearance, like dog poop? But, I can't observe my 'POP'. I wouldn't know how to, or what it is. I can't feel it, see it, sense it. To me, a 'POP' is an abstract idea, it's not irrelevant as an abstract idea, but I wouldn't know how to observe it. What are you observing? Or...later thought.... is a 'POP' synonymous with 'personal awareness'?Maybe. It doesn't deserve to be mysterious. You perceive the world from a unique point of view. (presumably) That's already the point of perception. You don't need to find it like you find dog dodo.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 18:35:53 GMT -5
What's the context for this? If POP's are actual, and personal awareness is illusion, then what is Impersonal Awareness? He's assuming that there is an individual behind the words that he reads. Such an individual is now known as the memetic phrase 'Point of perception'. To be identified as a POP, Awareness must be awake to itself through the body mind system that Enigma is currently engaged with. Once he's no longer engaged with it he can no longer be certain that it is still a POP, not that he could have been completely certain previously. You mean SR? No, a POP is just a nexus of experience in the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 18:53:33 GMT -5
He's assuming that there is an individual behind the words that he reads. Such an individual is now known as the memetic phrase 'Point of perception'. To be identified as a POP, Awareness must be awake to itself through the body mind system that Enigma is currently engaged with. Once he's no longer engaged with it he can no longer be certain that it is still a POP, not that he could have been completely certain previously. You mean SR? No, a POP is just a nexus of experience in the world. In what way are you using the word Nexus? www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nexus
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 19:02:49 GMT -5
as said above, I don't know what a POP is to you. Is it actual, like impersonal Awareness? Is it an appearance, like dog poop? But, I can't observe my 'POP'. I wouldn't know how to, or what it is. I can't feel it, see it, sense it. To me, a 'POP' is an abstract idea, it's not irrelevant as an abstract idea, but I wouldn't know how to observe it. What are you observing? Or...later thought.... is a 'POP' synonymous with 'personal awareness'?Maybe. It doesn't deserve to be mysterious. You perceive the world from a unique point of view. (presumably) That's already the point of perception. You don't need to find it like you find dog dodo. How does the inclusion of the bolded happen for you? Is it like a neural tic now that you have to remember to include in your posts, or has it become such an aspect of your conditioning that you're not even aware of it as a 'tic' anymore?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 7, 2019 20:41:14 GMT -5
A convergence of sensory input.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 22:42:08 GMT -5
The 'Us' includes me,Enigma,Figgles. We three have been arguing that other person existence can not be known! She means to ask you how you know Enigma and Figgles 'exist'. Yes, yes, I realized when I saw your reply to her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 22:49:11 GMT -5
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. That would certainly make more sense, as living being can at least be seen to have the mental apparatus we might usually associate with perception (brain etc). But obviously Enigma is saying something else as you can see here, when he unequivocally says "" There's no reason dog dodo cannot be a point of perception". You might want to take that up with him. It's an amusing notion, but not much more than holy dog dodo. Fwiw, I promise that I fully understand the point being made, but accept you might not want to take my word for that, as I do not signify full agreement with the conclusions. Yes, there is sincere interest. You are most welcome, and thanks to you too. If you ask me, I will go one step further. I would say whatever appearance is appearing to you is merely appearance(it could be person or it could be a rock), nothing else. Assuming the person who appears to you is another view point of the same consciousness is mere speculation. So that kind of assumption to the same dog dodo is not having so much difference for me. Because it's all are assumption. You can say appearing person is figment for sure because by the virtue of appearance, that's definitely the case. But since I am a view point who perceives, I tend to assume or started speculating that that appearing another individual might be having a view point like me. Whatever is in speculation can't be taken for truth no matter how compelling it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 22:49:51 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. yes, assuming. You are right!
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 8, 2019 2:36:34 GMT -5
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 .I don't understand your theory. Do you think there is an experiencer and then a witness of that experiencer? I don't see a difference between one that witnesses or observes and the one that experiences .. You seem to think that the experiencer is in someway out trumping the witness .. All I want to know is how that is so ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 8, 2019 2:49:25 GMT -5
What I am is here and now, it has never been hidden from view . It's the only view there is. what are you, according to your theory? I don't have a theory, but I know that I am presently conscious and aware . This is the whole reason I say there is 'only what you are' and leave it at that . You, the masters and most folks speculate 'what they are' as being this or that and then add layers to that speculation . I believe that my realization, i.e. the absence of self and the mind resulted in my understandings of the self and the mind and one's nature so to speak .. There were no thought's when self and the mind was absent that gave me the impression I am this or that per se .. How can there be anyone present that can entertain a mindful thought of that? So I am interested in those that are adamant about what they are and I ask them questions about that specific realization .. As you might of gathered, I rarely get a straight answer to that kinda question . In regards to the view of what you are always being there, this is my understanding based upon self's absence .
|
|