Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 4:03:42 GMT -5
I exist and I am the view point of awareness. Points of perception don't independently exist. You are the one who forms the point of perception. Nothing else exists. May I suggest that it is these types of context upgrades that cause more confusion than they dispel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 4:09:04 GMT -5
Appearance is not aware, Consciousness is aware. Since my daughter is appearing in my consciousness, I can't know whether she has any real view point like mine. Are you equating Consciousness to 'my consciousness'? If so, what egzakly do you mean by 'my consciousness'? You are the one who forms the point of perception. It would be my educated guess that this is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 6:38:19 GMT -5
I am said I am consciousness. But my daughter is appearing in my consciousness. So I can't know whether she is real. Do you get me? Just wanted to say your questions are perfectly legitimate. See, if there are appearances, there is most certainly creation, and then what does the creating is indeed a question. That's why the truer theory (though it, like all theories, is also not quite true) is that there are no appearances. Appearance itself is a misconception. In the Vedantic scheme, if there are said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then the creator must exist. That would be God ("saguna brahman"). If there cannot be said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then these questions simply do not arise. There's no way it can be said that there are no appearances appearing. It's self evident. Pretending there's not so that no questions arise is the head-in-the-sand approach.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 6:41:55 GMT -5
Just wanted to say your questions are perfectly legitimate. See, if there are appearances, there is most certainly creation, and then what does the creating is indeed a question. That's why the truer theory (though it, like all theories, is also not quite true) is that there are no appearances. Appearance itself is a misconception. In the Vedantic scheme, if there are said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then the creator must exist. That would be God ("saguna brahman"). If there cannot be said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then these questions simply do not arise. But how come there are no appearances? Its apparently appearing to me. They're not apparently appearing, they ARE appearing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 6:44:09 GMT -5
But how come there are no appearances? Its apparently appearing to me. Yes, of course, that's the misconception. If you look very carefully into the I to whom appearances are apparently appearing, it will eventually become clear that the very idea that appearances are appearing is mistaken; it is based on a false conception of the I. When that conception falls, so does the appearances of "apparently appearing" things. But this is not something that can be understood through reason or logic alone. It has nothing to do with any 'I' concept. No identification is needed for appearances to appear.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 6:49:01 GMT -5
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. It's not speculation. There is only awareness. Nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 6:52:29 GMT -5
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. I was the one who said that. (still conceding)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 6:56:58 GMT -5
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. I did!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 7:08:53 GMT -5
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? I think you're trying to say you can't know dreamless sleep because you don't experience during it. It has nothing to do with the starting point of a dream.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 7:28:31 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. Yes, very good. But don't you see that this is why it's necessary to bring to the table, levels? The Base, the Ground, Source, Infinite Being, has no boundaries. But look around, look at our world, we have to deal with our experience. We live and experience the dual world, your very post points this out. OTOH there is Infinite Being. OTOH there is creation/perception. From the standpoint of Infinite Being, there is only One, Wholeness. But from our standpoint, most everybody, we experience multiplicity and fragmentation. ~This~, is relatively real, real enough that we experience blood, sweat and tears. I don't know what you mean by levels. There are different contexts, and we talk about and in them endlessly.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 7:42:46 GMT -5
Yes, as I said, if you have the conception that appearances appear, then you will have the question as to how they appear, and you will have to posit a God who creates them... But appearances cannot be said to appear. Yes, perhaps I am in a separate boat on this point, hard to say. I would say appearances seem to be appearing, which is therefore 'uncertain'. i know you and tenka spent some days hashing something out, but actually I see your boats as quite similar in many regards. Appearances are certainly appearing. Nothing more is needed to prove that than the appearance of them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 7:45:32 GMT -5
That’s interesting if true. And appearances appear to appear is really just a way of pointing to the merely provisional position of even that statement, no? yes, I think so. I can't readily see the value of swapping from a certain reality of 'things' to a certain reality of 'appearances'. It's the start of the little greasy spot.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 8:31:39 GMT -5
That's what I'm trying to point out to you. In what way do you think you are the moon? Your doing eggsactly what Gopal did via a suggestive remark / question in that 'I AM the brain' . He is personalising everything 'that is' which includes the non personal and then changing context by associating it to something that is. Everything is consciousness is what has been suggested by you and a few other's, so it's not difficult to understand that the moon is what you are ..Don't go changing context and you will be fine .. Where have I said that I AM the moon? I have said everything is what you are .. For some reason the last time you played around with my theory you and other's made out that an individual that acted stupid mean't everyone is stupid .. You need to just sit and ponder on what I mean by there is only what you are .. I have actually gone into depths with this many times, but it's just not sinking in .. But what are you suggesting? That everything is Consciousness? How is physical matter Consciousness? I'm not sure your theory stands up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 8:49:44 GMT -5
Your world is one of natural laws and stuff and time and space. And yet you say that is all what you are. I'm just scrutinizing your ideas to see if they hold up, so please explain. Again you are mixing concepts up. You speak about 'my' world and then speak about natural laws and time and space . From a personal perspective they are not my laws nor am I the creator of time and space .. Sort out your contexts and then see if my theory holds up . If everything is what you are, it includes the world, laws, time, space. I'm speaking from the same perspective you are when you say 'everything is what you are'. I assume it's not exclusively a personal perspective. Now can you answer the question without all the mixing concepts malarkey?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 3, 2019 8:55:32 GMT -5
Your doing eggsactly what Gopal did via a suggestive remark / question in that 'I AM the brain' . He is personalising everything 'that is' which includes the non personal and then changing context by associating it to something that is. Everything is consciousness is what has been suggested by you and a few other's, so it's not difficult to understand that the moon is what you are ..Don't go changing context and you will be fine .. Where have I said that I AM the moon? I have said everything is what you are .. For some reason the last time you played around with my theory you and other's made out that an individual that acted stupid mean't everyone is stupid .. You need to just sit and ponder on what I mean by there is only what you are .. I have actually gone into depths with this many times, but it's just not sinking in .. But what are you suggesting? That everything is Consciousness? How is physical matter Consciousness? I'm not sure your theory stands up to scrutiny. I am not suggesting anything, this is and has been the point I have always made and maintained .. This is why I don't get in an awful muddle of a premise .. You see there is what you are that is intelligent and conscious and aware of the mind-reality.. This doesn't mean that what you are IS consciousness or awareness or Intelligence per se, but you cannot separate what you are from these qualities / attributes . In the same way 'what you are' becomes aware of a personality doesn't mean that what you solely are is the person .. Peeps have to really pay attention to what I say and have said in these regards .. I used to get stick for saying there is only what you are because to some in made no bloody sense at all .. butt perhaps a few might understand the relevance for maintaining this stance for years on end .. where other's keep on and on with wanting to say we are this and not that and the person isn't the doer . It's never been the case that there is a person and there is something else other than .. like said in your case the bus driver or the liver or the moon IS Consciousness ... There has never been the case that the driver is not responsible for one's actions and consciousness Is, because there has never been one or the other or just one because they are both the same .. Consciousness as a pointer is full of issues, not only for starters because it is a made up word but for some they want to use it as a matter of fact in order make sense of their reality . What else is interesting here is that you again imply that my theory doesn't stand up and yet you have to still ask me what I mean by it .. I am wondering how anyone can make such a bold statement while not understanding what I mean lol ..
|
|