|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2014 3:20:53 GMT -5
My comment was 'I see it that the mind can allow one to perceive the same thing differently it only becomes a matter of being a right way or a wrong way of perceiving the same thing when one concludes as such . I know that right and wrong are subjective. It's irrelevant to the question I've been asking you. However, there are objectively true and false statements. My question is, which way did you mean it when you said 'what is, is how one perceives it'? My main point is being missed and really this was only the point I was originally making and that is one perceives as they do . Through such a point life is how it is for the individual . Laughter see's silliness and contradiction in my words, you have spoken of subjectivity within true and false statements . A monkey or a 2 year old perhaps wouldn't see the world or self as you or I see it and so for the monkey life is as it is for them . Each perspective had from the monkey to the realized master just reflects life and self as they see it . Beyond the intellect there is no reasoning, there is no evaluation of contradictions or silliness or something being right or wrong . So what does that say about what is silly and what is not, what is despicable and what is not . Surely whatever it is will be in the eyes of the beholder . In answer to your question 'what is, is how one perceives it'? It is straightforward as in if someone perceives the sun as a ball of fire then the sun is a ball of fire from their perspective . What is the sun 'is what the sun is' within their perception of it . We could break down what the ball of fire is from an scientific perspective and ascertain the composition of the gases and such likes but that would be the perspective of the scientist . The ball of fire perspective 'is how it is' and the ball of gas is 'how it is', neither are right or wrong it's just how we see it . So 'what is' whatever that is, is how one perceives it . It only becomes 'what it is' as and when one relates to what that is , The contradictions are only contradictions when one see's them as such, .. It doesn't make them anything other than what one makes them to be . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2014 3:26:39 GMT -5
What is happening is that I use what words come to mind . The words that I use make sense to me in relation to what I associate them with . The inns and the outs of such words in regards to what they mean to you is part of how you make sense of things, it is part of how you see things . This is why I have said all along that 'what is perceived is only in the eyes of the beholder' . I use the word 'self' and that in it's self can be limiting although I understand the self to be what we are within mind just as a way of relating to what we are . The 'self' however is just a figure head like any other word reference is . Now we can pull apart the limitations of using a particular word over another till the cows come home but I will use the limitations of language how I see it . You see the subjectivity trap again is how you see it . Some will not notice any limitations nor will they notice contradictions within their very words . This emphasises my thoughts from the very start in reference to one perceiving as they do, it is always how one see's it whether you see love in everything or whether you see a mixture of love and something else . The love is there for the one that perceives it . The subjectivity trap is there for the one that perceives it . I haven't been changing my tune in regards to what I say regarding difference but rather more that I am going deeper into what I mean regarding difference . The inherent sameness I speak of refers to what we are . What we are, is what we are no matter how we perceive what that is . The sameness is that it is always what we are no matter how we dress it up . Perhaps there is never going to the exact same perception had of what we are but that does not dismiss the sameness that is . Noting the falsity in an idea expressed by someone doesn't wipe the idea out of existence -- it doesn't separate the perspective that notices the falsity from the idea, it's just an expression of an orientation toward it. Is the moon made of cream cheese? From one perspective the moon is in the sky and the ground is beneath my feet but it is what it is and perhaps the earth and the moon have the same properties but we can call the moon a mars bar and it will only be an incorrect assumption because we assume it is the moon . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 17, 2014 8:26:47 GMT -5
Noting the falsity in an idea expressed by someone doesn't wipe the idea out of existence -- it doesn't separate the perspective that notices the falsity from the idea, it's just an expression of an orientation toward it. Is the moon made of cream cheese? From one perspective the moon is in the sky and the ground is beneath my feet but it is what it is and perhaps the earth and the moon have the same properties but we can call the moon a mars bar and it will only be an incorrect assumption because we assume it is the moon . TMT |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 17, 2014 8:35:37 GMT -5
I know that right and wrong are subjective. It's irrelevant to the question I've been asking you. However, there are objectively true and false statements. My question is, which way did you mean it when you said 'what is, is how one perceives it'? My main point is being missed and really this was only the point I was originally making and that is one perceives as they do . Through such a point life is how it is for the individual . Laughter see's silliness and contradiction in my words, you have spoken of subjectivity within true and false statements . A monkey or a 2 year old perhaps wouldn't see the world or self as you or I see it and so for the monkey life is as it is for them . Each perspective had from the monkey to the realized master just reflects life and self as they see it . Beyond the intellect there is no reasoning, there is no evaluation of contradictions or silliness or something being right or wrong . So what does that say about what is silly and what is not, what is despicable and what is not . Surely whatever it is will be in the eyes of the beholder . In answer to your question 'what is, is how one perceives it'? It is straightforward as in if someone perceives the sun as a ball of fire then the sun is a ball of fire from their perspective . What is the sun 'is what the sun is' within their perception of it . We could break down what the ball of fire is from an scientific perspective and ascertain the composition of the gases and such likes but that would be the perspective of the scientist . The ball of fire perspective 'is how it is' and the ball of gas is 'how it is', neither are right or wrong it's just how we see it . So 'what is' whatever that is, is how one perceives it . It only becomes 'what it is' as and when one relates to what that is , The contradictions are only contradictions when one see's them as such, .. It doesn't make them anything other than what one makes them to be . You've conflated the two different dialogs -- the one with me and the one with E. E's question was much more simple and focused and most of your answer simply doesn't apply to it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 17, 2014 9:42:47 GMT -5
From one perspective the moon is in the sky and the ground is beneath my feet but it is what it is and perhaps the earth and the moon have the same properties but we can call the moon a mars bar and it will only be an incorrect assumption because we assume it is the moon . TMT tenka....in case you don't know yet, Laughter is telling you that your response there was 'the master's teaching'. TMT is a high compliment to pay another on here, so very well done.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 17, 2014 10:30:53 GMT -5
I know that right and wrong are subjective. It's irrelevant to the question I've been asking you. However, there are objectively true and false statements. My question is, which way did you mean it when you said 'what is, is how one perceives it'? My main point is being missed and really this was only the point I was originally making and that is one perceives as they do . Through such a point life is how it is for the individual . Laughter see's silliness and contradiction in my words, you have spoken of subjectivity within true and false statements . A monkey or a 2 year old perhaps wouldn't see the world or self as you or I see it and so for the monkey life is as it is for them . Each perspective had from the monkey to the realized master just reflects life and self as they see it . Beyond the intellect there is no reasoning, there is no evaluation of contradictions or silliness or something being right or wrong . So what does that say about what is silly and what is not, what is despicable and what is not . Surely whatever it is will be in the eyes of the beholder . In answer to your question 'what is, is how one perceives it'? It is straightforward as in if someone perceives the sun as a ball of fire then the sun is a ball of fire from their perspective . What is the sun 'is what the sun is' within their perception of it . We could break down what the ball of fire is from an scientific perspective and ascertain the composition of the gases and such likes but that would be the perspective of the scientist . The ball of fire perspective 'is how it is' and the ball of gas is 'how it is', neither are right or wrong it's just how we see it . So 'what is' whatever that is, is how one perceives it . It only becomes 'what it is' as and when one relates to what that is , The contradictions are only contradictions when one see's them as such, .. It doesn't make them anything other than what one makes them to be . I would disagree with you again, but I'm afraid we would spin off on several more tangents for another two weeks before you addressed it again.  Apart from that erroneous statement, all you seem to be saying is that perception is subjective. We understand how that works. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 17, 2014 10:50:21 GMT -5
tenka....in case you don't know yet, Laughter is telling you that your response there was 'the master's teaching'. TMT is a high compliment to pay another on here, so very well done.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 18, 2014 1:38:19 GMT -5
seeker: If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where will it lead me? Niz: Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like one part of your dream and not another. Love all or none of it, and stop complaining. When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs to be done. (para 52, dialog 29 of "I AM THAT", "Living is Life's Only Purpose")
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 18, 2014 2:42:00 GMT -5
Niz talks to a detached face-value experiencer with a hat collection ("habitual ways") who has decided to stop questioning and is "free from all ideas": Q: I have noticed a new self emerging in me, independent of the old self. They somehow coexist. The old self goes on its habitual ways; the new lets the old be, but does not identify itself with it. Niz: What is the main difference between the old self and the new? Q: The old self wants everything defined and explained. It wants things to fit each other verbally. The new does not care for verbal explanations -- it accepts things as they are and does not seek to relate them to things remembered. Niz: Are you fully and constantly aware of the difference between the habitual and the spiritual? What is the attitude of the new self to the old? Q: The new just looks at the old. It is neither friendly nor inimical. It just accepts the old self along with everything else. It does not deny its being, but does not accept its value and validity. Niz: The new is the total denial of the old. The permissive new is not really new. It is but a new attitude of the old. They really new obliterates the old completely. The two cannot be together. Is there a process of self-denudation, a constant refusal to accept the old ideas and values, or is there just a mutual tolerance? What is their relation? Q: There is not particular relation. They coexist. Niz: When you talk of the old self and the new, who do you have in mind? As there is continuity in memory between the two, each remembering the other, how can you speak of the two selves? Q: One is a slave to habits, the other is not. One conceptualizes, the other is free from all ideas. (From Chapter 42 of "I AM THAT", "Reality Cannot Be Expressed") The remainder of the dialog is here. This is very applicable to the MT's, because the conflict that the seeker and Niz identify in the dialog ... Niz: Just now, as you are sitting in front of me, which self are you? The old or the new? Q: The two are in conflict. .... is the exact same conflict that repetitively appears in the MT's. The seeker Niz is dialoging with is at a distinct advantage to all the ciggy-men who come to the MT's looking for fights though, because he is at least being honest with himself that there is a mind split and conflict going on. Hmmmm ... "Reality Cannot Be Expressed" ...  iow: In terms of the MT's, the conflict manifests as personal projection + ideating about expressions that are pointers. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 20, 2014 2:49:57 GMT -5
tenka....in case you don't know yet, Laughter is telling you that your response there was 'the master's teaching'. TMT is a high compliment to pay another on here, so very well done. And there was I thinking TMT was something like too much tomato  |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 20, 2014 2:50:58 GMT -5
My main point is being missed and really this was only the point I was originally making and that is one perceives as they do . Through such a point life is how it is for the individual . Laughter see's silliness and contradiction in my words, you have spoken of subjectivity within true and false statements . A monkey or a 2 year old perhaps wouldn't see the world or self as you or I see it and so for the monkey life is as it is for them . Each perspective had from the monkey to the realized master just reflects life and self as they see it . Beyond the intellect there is no reasoning, there is no evaluation of contradictions or silliness or something being right or wrong . So what does that say about what is silly and what is not, what is despicable and what is not . Surely whatever it is will be in the eyes of the beholder . In answer to your question 'what is, is how one perceives it'? It is straightforward as in if someone perceives the sun as a ball of fire then the sun is a ball of fire from their perspective . What is the sun 'is what the sun is' within their perception of it . We could break down what the ball of fire is from an scientific perspective and ascertain the composition of the gases and such likes but that would be the perspective of the scientist . The ball of fire perspective 'is how it is' and the ball of gas is 'how it is', neither are right or wrong it's just how we see it . So 'what is' whatever that is, is how one perceives it . It only becomes 'what it is' as and when one relates to what that is , The contradictions are only contradictions when one see's them as such, .. It doesn't make them anything other than what one makes them to be . I would disagree with you again, but I'm afraid we would spin off on several more tangents for another two weeks before you addressed it again. Apart from that erroneous statement, all you seem to be saying is that perception is subjective. We understand how that works. Are you perhaps suggesting that something is something prior to one perceiving it as being something? If you disagree with ''It only becomes 'what it is' as and when one relates to what that is , then what is it prior to one's evaluation . |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 20, 2014 11:52:29 GMT -5
I would disagree with you again, but I'm afraid we would spin off on several more tangents for another two weeks before you addressed it again. Apart from that erroneous statement, all you seem to be saying is that perception is subjective. We understand how that works. Are you perhaps suggesting that something is something prior to one perceiving it as being something? If you disagree with ''It only becomes 'what it is' as and when one relates to what that is , then what is it prior to one's evaluation . I have said that perception and creation are the same. However, this doesn't mean that you can perceive a pterodactyl while I perceive a platypus, and both of our perceptions are equally valid and correct. Creation/perception is not personal and self contained, and so there actually is an objective 'reality' common to both acts of perception. Interpretation is the subjective overlay of the personal perspective, and of course that interpretation is going to vary. We could say there is one appearance in consciousness that is common to both of us, though how we interpret that is variable. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2014 13:47:08 GMT -5
I would disagree with you again, but I'm afraid we would spin off on several more tangents for another two weeks before you addressed it again. Apart from that erroneous statement, all you seem to be saying is that perception is subjective. We understand how that works. Are you perhaps suggesting that something is some thing prior to one perceiving it as being something? If you disagree with ''It only becomes 'what it is' as and when one relates to what that is , then what is it prior to one's evaluation . a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2014 13:56:45 GMT -5
Are you perhaps suggesting that something is something prior to one perceiving it as being something? If you disagree with ''It only becomes 'what it is' as and when one relates to what that is , then what is it prior to one's evaluation . I have said that perception and creation are the same. However, this doesn't mean that you can perceive a pterodactyl while I perceive a platypus, and both of our perceptions are equally valid and correct. Creation/perception is not personal and self contained, and so there actually is an objective 'reality' common to both acts of perception. Interpretation is the subjective overlay of the personal perspective, and of course that interpretation is going to vary. We could say there is one appearance in consciousness that is common to both of us, though how we interpret that is variable. But I'd say that the nature of this isn't what peeps who see themselves as part of and inside a greater objective reality think it is. I'd actually defocus the concept here, in that there are consensus that can be had across perspectives, on one hand, and then, on the other hand, there is what we're on notice of by ineffability as what underlies and is prior-to all appearance, beyond objectification, and not false. The first is what I'd call "objective reality", the 2nd I wouldn't name, as it's not two. The two are obviously related by the concept of commonality, but all we have to go on for that relationship, are appearances, which are, of course, subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 20, 2014 15:30:20 GMT -5
I have said that perception and creation are the same. However, this doesn't mean that you can perceive a pterodactyl while I perceive a platypus, and both of our perceptions are equally valid and correct. Creation/perception is not personal and self contained, and so there actually is an objective 'reality' common to both acts of perception. Interpretation is the subjective overlay of the personal perspective, and of course that interpretation is going to vary. We could say there is one appearance in consciousness that is common to both of us, though how we interpret that is variable. But I'd say that the nature of this isn't what peeps who see themselves as part of and inside a greater objective reality think it is. I'd actually defocus the concept here, in that there are consensus that can be had across perspectives, on one hand, and then, on the other hand, there is what we're on notice of by ineffability as what underlies and is prior-to all appearance, beyond objectification, and not false. The first is what I'd call "objective reality", the 2nd I wouldn't name, as it's not two. The two are obviously related by the concept of commonality, but all we have to go on for that relationship, are appearances, which are, of course, subjective. I'm not sure I know what you're saying, but yes, 'objective reality' is not what most imagine it is. The way I talk about it is 'reality' never gets 'out there' to become the objects that 'objective' implies. However, that doesn't mean 'reality' becomes subjective because the subject is part of that 'reality'. IOW, the person is one of the appearances rather than the source or observer of an appearance. This places the subject, perhaps best conceived as subjectivity, prior to appearances, and therefore common to all appearances. This is what makes appearances appear to be objective, rather than an actual 'objective reality' outside of the perceiver. My guess is you're saying the same thing, but it's just a guess. |
|
