|
|
Post by tathagata on Dec 22, 2011 13:35:22 GMT -5
In any case, that presence is sometimes not present is just a thought. Is forgetting a thought? dunno, jes asking. No, but trying to remember something you forgot is hehehe |
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 22, 2011 15:17:51 GMT -5
Is forgetting a thought? dunno, jes asking. No, but trying to remember something you forgot is hehehe So, we have two different takes on it. Question seems to think it is, and i'm guessing he's pointing at unconscious thought being the culprit. You say, "no." i'm guessing this is a post-fusion matter. i dunno. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 22, 2011 15:52:56 GMT -5
You have a thought "Oh, I forgot something". Prior to that thought there is no such thought.
I think Tat's answer is actually 'yes' but as always he is trying to be clever and funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 22, 2011 16:09:29 GMT -5
You have a thought "Oh, I forgot something". Prior to that thought there is no such thought. I think Tat's answer is actually 'yes' but as always he is trying to be clever and funny. Your posts of late come closest to fulfilling this..... A person is beyond all suffering when he can think and act without disturbing the silent clarity of mind. ummmm...so there ya go. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 22, 2011 18:04:26 GMT -5
pssssst, tath...
This goes for you, too. I say that because you embody this on a daily basis...
"Language creates reality. Words have power. Speak always to create joy!"
namaste
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2011 21:30:29 GMT -5
All he's trying to say is that the object doesn't precede the awareness of the object. It seems like that's a jump, that's all. Awareness of an object is dependent on awareness of an object. In other words, for Awareness of an object to happen there needs to be two ingredients: awareness and object. It's a jump to conclude that because those two need to be in place for awareness of an object to happen, that an object doesn't exist prior to awareness (or vice versa). Who the heck knows? NOT ME, that's for sure. The focus on actual direct experience is useful, and that's what Goode is suggesting. The idea that the object DOES exist even when there is no awareness of it, is already a conclusion not available to you in your actual experience. If you turn your head away from this monitor, how can you know there is an unseen monitor? Even as you observe the monitor, how can know that it is 'out there' and not just 'in here' as a sensation of image and thought? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2011 21:47:56 GMT -5
Enigma, I'm still not sure why you're calling it awareness, imo it's just presence (what is). Call it whatever you want. So you conlclude that you infer sleep? Have you ever fallen asleep, only to awaken say a minute later, such that there is no obvious evidence to indicate you have slept? And yet you know that you slept. Is it because you watch consciousness come and go? Can consciousness watch itself come and go? Because what I mean by the sense of 'I am' is the sense of existing. You don't know that you exist? Because even presence comes and goes. We want to back up to that which is aware of even the most subtle appearance. THAT must be what you are. That which never appears. What knows of this presence you talk about? It must be prior to presence, right? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 23, 2011 9:23:35 GMT -5
So you conlclude that you infer sleep? Have you ever fallen asleep, only to awaken say a minute later, such that there is no obvious evidence to indicate you have slept? And yet you know that you slept. Is it because you watch consciousness come and go? Can consciousness watch itself come and go?
Yes, sleep is infered; it's just a function of memory/thought, which isn't very trustworthy and misunderstood if memory is taken to say anything about the reality of anything. Same way as you say that if you turn your head away from the monitor it's a conclusion to say that the monitor still exists.
You don't know that you exist?
There's just presence, it is 'known' by virtue of being present. Thought-knowledge may or may not be present. A red colour is 'known' because the qualia is actually present right here and now, not because a thought says so. The same principle applies to the thought-knowledge about presence.
Because even presence comes and goes. We want to back up to that which is aware of even the most subtle appearance. THAT must be what you are. That which never appears. What knows of this presence you talk about? It must be prior to presence, right?
By definition presence doesn't come or go, in experience it doesn't come and go. Sometimes there are thoughts which tell the story of a coming and going presence, but these thoughts are present. These thoughts and memories report a story about a now absent presence (immediate contradiction, but contextually valid (for example: "what day was yesterday?")), but what they're talking about can't be presence, because presence is present while thoughts are telling the story of an absent presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 23, 2011 9:35:48 GMT -5
Because even presence comes and goes. We want to back up to that which is aware of even the most subtle appearance. THAT must be what you are. That which never appears. What knows of this presence you talk about? It must be prior to presence, right? By definition presence doesn't come or go, in experience it doesn't come and go. Sometimes there are thoughts which tell the story of a coming and going presence, but these thoughts are present. These thoughts and memories report a story about a now absent presence (immediate contradiction, but contextually valid (for example: "what day was yesterday?")), but what they're talking about can't be presence, because presence is present while thoughts are telling the story of an absent presence. The full moon's reflection breaks apart on a windy lake, but that does not break up the moon itself!  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2011 0:35:53 GMT -5
So you conlclude that you infer sleep? Have you ever fallen asleep, only to awaken say a minute later, such that there is no obvious evidence to indicate you have slept? And yet you know that you slept. Is it because you watch consciousness come and go? Can consciousness watch itself come and go?Yes, sleep is infered; it's just a function of memory/thought, which isn't very trustworthy and misunderstood if memory is taken to say anything about the reality of anything. Same way as you say that if you turn your head away from the monitor it's a conclusion to say that the monitor still exists. You don't know that you exist?There's just presence, it is 'known' by virtue of being present. Thought-knowledge may or may not be present. A red colour is 'known' because the qualia is actually present right here and now, not because a thought says so. The same principle applies to the thought-knowledge about presence. Because even presence comes and goes. We want to back up to that which is aware of even the most subtle appearance. THAT must be what you are. That which never appears. What knows of this presence you talk about? It must be prior to presence, right? By definition presence doesn't come or go, in experience it doesn't come and go. Sometimes there are thoughts which tell the story of a coming and going presence, but these thoughts are present. These thoughts and memories report a story about a now absent presence (immediate contradiction, but contextually valid (for example: "what day was yesterday?")), but what they're talking about can't be presence, because presence is present while thoughts are telling the story of an absent presence. What you call presence is observed. What is observing it? |
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 26, 2011 9:37:43 GMT -5
So you conlclude that you infer sleep? Have you ever fallen asleep, only to awaken say a minute later, such that there is no obvious evidence to indicate you have slept? And yet you know that you slept. Is it because you watch consciousness come and go? Can consciousness watch itself come and go?Yes, sleep is infered; it's just a function of memory/thought, which isn't very trustworthy and misunderstood if memory is taken to say anything about the reality of anything. Same way as you say that if you turn your head away from the monitor it's a conclusion to say that the monitor still exists. You don't know that you exist?There's just presence, it is 'known' by virtue of being present. Thought-knowledge may or may not be present. A red colour is 'known' because the qualia is actually present right here and now, not because a thought says so. The same principle applies to the thought-knowledge about presence. Because even presence comes and goes. We want to back up to that which is aware of even the most subtle appearance. THAT must be what you are. That which never appears. What knows of this presence you talk about? It must be prior to presence, right? By definition presence doesn't come or go, in experience it doesn't come and go. Sometimes there are thoughts which tell the story of a coming and going presence, but these thoughts are present. These thoughts and memories report a story about a now absent presence (immediate contradiction, but contextually valid (for example: "what day was yesterday?")), but what they're talking about can't be presence, because presence is present while thoughts are telling the story of an absent presence. What you call presence is observed. What is observing it? The 'experiencer." |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Dec 26, 2011 9:49:03 GMT -5
AHA!The full moon's reflection breaks apart on a windy lake, but that does not break up the moon itself! How do you know that? |
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 26, 2011 10:07:42 GMT -5
Dunno..
Pfui!
|
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Dec 26, 2011 10:10:14 GMT -5
hearsay? conclusion? imagination/scientific fact?
|
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 26, 2011 10:17:45 GMT -5
Walk around the lake one night...
|
|
