|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 23, 2012 15:08:45 GMT -5
Can you witness the subject/subjectivity, or do you have to think about it? Again I dont quite understand the question, but any thing witnessed is witnessed through mind. Through the mind or not, can you directly witness the subject/subjectivity? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 15:13:56 GMT -5
Again I dont quite understand the question, but any thing witnessed is witnessed through mind. Through the mind or not, can you directly witness the subject/subjectivity? Sorry P, I dont know what you are asking me to witness. What do you mean by subject/subjectivity? And what are you saying is the difference between directly and indirect? |
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jan 23, 2012 15:23:40 GMT -5
Right. No interest (or attachment as you say) in seeing something as true or false is called attachment to the false. I don't know why you are touting this as some amazing spiritual or conscious characteristic when 99.99% of the population is non-attached to seeing something as true or false. Therefore delusion remains firmly intact and nothing is transcended.  I would say that most people are totally attached to seeing stuff as true or false. It comes with the belief in an objective external reality, and the belief that the truths and falsities of that external reality can be observed/known objectively. Not being attached to seeing stuff as true or false cannot be attachment to the false by definition. The true/false duality is the fundamental duality, the core duality. Perhaps we are talking about two different things. You often talk about attachment of seeing something as true or false, but what an example of something MOST people want to label true or false? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 15:35:21 GMT -5
I would say that most people are totally attached to seeing stuff as true or false. It comes with the belief in an objective external reality, and the belief that the truths and falsities of that external reality can be observed/known objectively. Not being attached to seeing stuff as true or false cannot be attachment to the false by definition. The true/false duality is the fundamental duality, the core duality. Perhaps we are talking about two different things. You often talk about attachment of seeing something as true or false, but what an example of something MOST people want to label true or false? Attachment to the duality of truth/falsity is basically a whole way of seeing. It can be blatantly obvious at times and subtle at other times. If someone is conceptually seeing, what is happening is that they are believing its true that something exists (and therefore that its also false that something else doesnt exist). It is how object consciousness (and separation) is perpetuated. Dont get me wrong, I can look up and see a television in front of me but I wouldnt say I am attached to the truth of its existence, therefore my experience of unity is primary and my experience of multiplicity is secondary. If I believed that its true that the television exists, I would be experiencing multiplicity primarily and unity secondarily. When we non-conceptually see we no longer need to believe that something is true or factual and something else is false or fictional. We may still play with these ideas but there is no investment in them. We no longer NEED to believe in objects (including ourselves). We no longer NEED to believe that its true (or false) that 'I exist'. Its a not-knowing. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 23, 2012 15:43:20 GMT -5
Sorry P, I dont know what you are asking me to witness. What do you mean by subject/subjectivity? If you are inclined to go back a few posts, you will see that you referred to "all seeing is subjective." And now you are asking me what 'subjectivity' is. Hehe, we hit a road block ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 15:48:16 GMT -5
Sorry P, I dont know what you are asking me to witness. What do you mean by subject/subjectivity? If you are inclined to go back a few posts, you will see that you referred to "all seeing is subjective." And now you are asking me what 'subjectivity' is. Hehe, we hit a road block ;D I understand what subjectivity is, I just dont understand what you mean when you ask me if I see subjectivity. I would say that what is seen is subjective (i.e is in the eye of the 'beholder') but we dont see 'subjectivity' as such. Does that answer the question? |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 23, 2012 15:57:45 GMT -5
OK. To me, what you wrote above shows that subjectivity is imaginary.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 16:07:47 GMT -5
OK. To me, what you wrote above shows that subjectivity is imaginary. Yes. Or we could say subjectivity is 'Mind'. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 23, 2012 16:13:33 GMT -5
Yes. Or we could say subjectivity is 'Mind'. I wouldn't. They are two different imaginary concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 16:19:38 GMT -5
Yes. Or we could say subjectivity is 'Mind'. I wouldn't. They are two different imaginary concepts. On reflection they are perhaps slightly different to me too. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2012 18:13:38 GMT -5
Which is only possible when the belief in personhood is seen for what it is. Seeing it for what it is doesnt change anything, it just adds to the knowledge. The conditioning itself has to be addressed and transmuted. That IS the conditioning. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2012 18:20:12 GMT -5
That's not done by visualizing white light and such. No toy left unbroken ;D I lllllike it! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 18:21:38 GMT -5
Seeing it for what it is doesnt change anything, it just adds to the knowledge. The conditioning itself has to be addressed and transmuted. That IS the conditioning. A story of the person is just a story (and not even a problematic one). Its the need to attach to the story as true or false that is the conditioning, and this need is in the subconscious not in the intellectual mind. |
|
Jasun
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Jasun on Jan 23, 2012 19:39:48 GMT -5
While no techniques can lead to 'awakening,' it's much better to arduously do something than to lament about hopelessness, helplessness, and futility. That sounds like quite an arduous "doing" to me! (It's also a technique of sorts) |
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Jan 23, 2012 21:43:43 GMT -5
That IS the conditioning. A story of the person is just a story (and not even a problematic one). Its the need to attach to the story as true or false that is the conditioning, and this need is in the subconscious not in the intellectual mind. Huh? I need more clarification on this one Andrew. |
|
