Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 1:13:07 GMT -5
You are only perceiving, you are not creating, aren't you see this clearly? You are not creating your thoughts, you are perceiving while it's moving. That's the reason is Satch is not answering here because he knows he is not the author of the arising thoughts. I know I am not a person. When you discover that you aren't either, this will be a very different conversation. I am more clear than you are! But you don't know that.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 3:16:44 GMT -5
I don’t prescribe to the creation equals perception premise as you do so I don’t have any confusion in this regard. What we are perceives the creation of the earth plane via the creation of a physical mind body that entertains the senses as part of it’s creation. I have always rejected that perceiving the moon as an example is also creating the moon at the same time, it’s not something that is Truthy nor is it realised .. So all we have here is a theory that has been created as a foundation that makes no sense to me and becomes problematic in ways that you are experiencing. In your way of looking at things, there is a creator and then there is a creation. You establish creation as objective, and this makes two. There is only what you are. There is only what you are implies only that . Your adding unnecessary layers . Just think about it .. There is only what you are .. It doesn't matter if you point to the creator, the moon or the pink elephant, there is only what you are .. You can come up with as many theories as there are species living on this planet, it doesn't change a thing about the initial statement.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 3:27:52 GMT -5
Well you might want to investigate why such a theory doesn't create confusion .. and adds up under scrutiny . An objective reality doesn't create confusion and adds up under scrutiny? Is that what you're saying? I don't have any problems with trees growing by their own creational accord without the need of being created via my perception . I don't have a problem with trees that existed before my physical birth . A tree can appear because a seed finds it's way deep within the soil and eventually takes root and sprouts above ground level . It has got now't to do with my perception capabilities but it has got everything to do with what we all are .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 3:38:54 GMT -5
Well that's a given because the person reflects the individual .. As soon as you start to associate the person as an expression of awareness you again add unnecessary layers .. (just saying) .. and to point out again that your other post reflected that consciousness and awareness are just pointers . What we are is all there is . What we are is the doer . There cannot be a non doer when doing is happening . To say there is no entity when there is an entity is denial . When there is no entity, there is no doer . Calling the doer as an example as awareness and then suggesting awareness doesn't do, is silly .. One might as well personalise awareness as the doer, while there is an individual present .. It all goes boobs up when one dismisses the doer because of there being no doer beyond doing . We're a bit infatuated with entities. We expect to find one at the core of every perception, every creation. Watch Gopal chase entities across the universe and beyond. What if there are no entities, just Intelligence, rapt in it's own dream of love and loss? Intelligence would therefore be the entity that embodies the physical experience .. We can't just say there is 'intelligence' and no entity, when 'intelligence' as a given example would be what you are .. Intelligence that can do what eggsactly? Make tea, have babies? feel happy and sad and perceive the moon? Sounds like an entity of sorts ..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 10:39:38 GMT -5
This is where the idea of God falling into his own dream becomes useful, but I know you resist that idea. How does the God falling into the dream is useful here? he doesn't know he creates? Huh? Now once again the same question to you, you are only perceiving, aren't you? You are not creating your thoughts and perceptions,eh? The Awareness that you are creates and perceives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 10:43:13 GMT -5
How does the God falling into the dream is useful here? he doesn't know he creates? Huh? Now once again the same question to you, you are only perceiving, aren't you? You are not creating your thoughts and perceptions,eh? The Awareness that you are creates and perceives. Perceiving is clear. But creating is speculation. That's why Satch says he doesn't know what creates.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 10:48:47 GMT -5
But of course his belief in an objective reality brings with it it's own set of problems. yes, I know of that. But what is the set of problems do you consider? may I know? If there is only what you are, as he insists, then you are mountains and dog poop, the origin of which is a mystery unless there is a personal God. An objective universe is even questioned from a scientific perspective and does not stand up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 2, 2019 10:50:40 GMT -5
How does the God falling into the dream is useful here? he doesn't know he creates? Huh? Now once again the same question to you, you are only perceiving, aren't you? You are not creating your thoughts and perceptions,eh? The Awareness that you are creates and perceives. So you wouldn't agree with laffy who said the word 'creation' is being used as a concession to mind's stories about how stuff appears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 11:07:05 GMT -5
yes, I know of that. But what is the set of problems do you consider? may I know? If there is only what you are, as he insists, then you are mountains and dog poop, the origin of which is a mystery unless there is a personal God. An objective universe is even questioned from a scientific perspective and does not stand up to scrutiny. okay. But you did not say what problem you do see.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 11:09:53 GMT -5
Infinite Being, by definition, has no boundaries on perception, which is clearly happening. The problem is a result of manipulating our own concepts as though they are ultimately true. 'Infinite Being" is being used to point to one aspect of 'THIS' and creation/perception is being used to point to another aspect. Forcing them to refer to the same 'thing' is going to lead to problems. Actually here, what we assign the meaning of infinite is depends upon person to person. You may say it's infinite because it can create anything in the next moment, but Andrew is saying it includes everything including past,present,future in it's single focus. Andy is saying that if the infinite is perceiving, it is perceiving without boundaries. He's not wrong. I tried to explain where the confusion comes from. It's still in this post if you care to read it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 11:13:14 GMT -5
There's nothing happening. How do you know? Can you tell me where does your nightly dream starts? You know that it must have started somewhere,right? While you can't even know where does your nightly dream starts, while you can't even remember the starting point of your nightly dream how come you know what happened before the starting point of night dream? How do you even know your nightly dream started? Your nightly dreams start when you start experiencing a dream, and end when it is over. Where's the mystery? I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not there is dreamless sleep.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 11:14:18 GMT -5
You know from your own experience that dreamless sleep is absent experience. (nothing happening) Speculation after speculation. Read my above post. Read my above response.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 11:16:42 GMT -5
If we wait a little while, he'll tell himself again. He weaves with one hand and rends with the other. I have never denied that creation is perception,Did I ever do? That's the weaving part. The rending part comes when you try to separate creator from perceiver again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 11:19:11 GMT -5
How do you know? Can you tell me where does your nightly dream starts? You know that it must have started somewhere,right? While you can't even know where does your nightly dream starts, while you can't even remember the starting point of your nightly dream how come you know what happened before the starting point of night dream? How do you even know your nightly dream started? Your nightly dreams start when you start experiencing a dream, and end when it is over. Where's the mystery? I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not there is dreamless sleep. are you acting like you did not understand what I am asking ? I am asking you while you can't know the staring point of the dream because you can't recollect how can you know you have had perceptionless sleep?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 11:20:52 GMT -5
What kind of sleep objects do you have? I did not proclaimed to have any. I said your failure to recall the starting point of the dream tells me you can't conclude something is not present in the deep sleep. When you tell someone about your dream, you relate it from where it began to where it ended.
|
|