|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 11:53:40 GMT -5
How do I know what comes from outside? The image? Okay i just read some of your next messages. I see this, again, an an issue of context. If we are going to speak of an image created in a brain, then iam going to assume that this brain is inside a head, and the head has a body. If there is a body, then there is a world and a universe. These conversations are just about keeping things in order. If you are going to speak of a brain, then saying there is no moon at all doesnt make sense. I still agree that what we see is the image created in the brain.Do babies interact and respond? They see their mom and know there is a world don't they? So you have never seen the actual moon,agree? I don't know. Neither do you. It also doesn't matter. Does a baby care if the mother is actual or not? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 11:55:33 GMT -5
That would be an odd place to live from though, wouldn't it ? Denying the existence of a brain in your head unless it actually appears? I am directly perceiving and concluding, but you are speculating from what you have seen and concluding. You are seeing the moon and speculating that it's dangling in the sky, but I am not speculating that, I am simply perceiving and saying that moon is appearing to me. Why do you bring some kind of world which you have never seen in your life time? How did you get all that from my question? I'm simply asking if you think it would be odd to live from a place where you deny the existence of brains, legs, eyes, glasses, in your day to day, moment to moment experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 11:55:59 GMT -5
You are still not understand where is the problem. I am saying you and I have seen such a world. This world is built only from your speculation. We both agree that we are perceiving, but you suddenly say that it's coming from some kind of mysterious world. If you say so, you have to prove to me that how do you know that ? what you are doing is, you are asking me to disprove that there is no such a world. Why would I do that because I haven't claimed that such a world exist because I have never seen such a world,neither do you. So you need to prove me how are you coming to that conclusion that there is moon outside. Once again your experience is not seeing the moon through your eyes, your experience is perceiving the moon from where all your speculation comes in. You say mysterious world. I don't. You say magic world. I don't. If I say look at that clear moon gopal, you look up and experience it as real. Then you think about it afterwards and decide you have never reacted with such a world. Why would you do that? What was your first reaction when you saw the moon. Why doubt your experience. Perhaps you're in the matrix. You like that movie and quoted a huge chunk of dialogue from it a year ago. Is that what influences your thinking? I cannot prove to you that the word is real and you cannot prove to me that it is not real. What does that tell you? What it tells me is that it cannot be resolved by the mind. What is clear is that we react as though the word is real and that's good enough. Over and out! I am clearly not imagining you are doing that Job, you are saying to me that moon is in miles away from here. I am not falling into that speculation. I am directly seeing that and telling you that moon is appearing, but what you are doing here is, you are seeing the first appearance named moon and second appearance named eye, and start to speculate that eye is receiving the vision of moon but you are forgetting the truth that eye is also another appearance. So you continue to live in your la-la-la land. You can't prove to me that the world is real because that's born out of your imagination, and you say 'you cannot prove to me that it is not real' but I am saying you that you have never seen such a world, If so, you have constructed mentally, Said that why would I need prove you that that world doesn't exist? It's like I am asking you to prove unicorn doesn't exist, If I ask youto prove what would you say? You would say that you and I have never seen unicorn, If so, why would I need prove the existence of unicorn? are you not? In the way I don't need to prove the world which comes our of your imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 11:58:18 GMT -5
I think he is simply trying to say that beyond the fact that something is experienced, there is no need to 'prove' or figure out anything else about it. If it arises in experience, it simply IS, and there is nothing that needs to be known about it beyond that. It's the difference between living in our heads grasping for answers and 'truths' about being, vs. simple, present moment being. Are these eyes I experience seeing through real...? Real enough. Why is he not imagining that the moon he is perceiving is coming out of mouth of unicorn? Why is he assume that the same copy is present there in the sky? What makes him such an assumption? When you eat an apple you take the experience for what it is. Why make your experience more complicated than that? I can see value in challenging the belief in an objective world...the point being to loosen attachment, but swapping strong belief in an objective world for a strong belief in appearances misses the point of the exercise. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 12:03:26 GMT -5
So you have never seen the actual moon,agree? I don't know. Neither do you. It also doesn't matter. Does a baby care if the mother is actual or not? You don't know? what? you don't know you are perceiving the moon? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 12:06:14 GMT -5
I think he is simply trying to say that beyond the fact that something is experienced, there is no need to 'prove' or figure out anything else about it. If it arises in experience, it simply IS, and there is nothing that needs to be known about it beyond that. It's the difference between living in our heads grasping for answers and 'truths' about being, vs. simple, present moment being. Are these eyes I experience seeing through real...? Real enough. Why is he not imagining that the moon he is perceiving is coming out of mouth of unicorn? Why is he assume that the same copy is present there in the sky? What makes him such an assumption? It's the difference between just taking all that appears, happens, is experienced 'as experience' and not needing to know (actually seeing that nothing really c an be known for certain) about it's existence beyond the fact that it is appearing in experience. You admit that you can't know for certain whether other is figment or not, but seem to be arguing that you CAN know for certain how all that appears and arises, does so..? If so, I find that kind of odd. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 12:13:05 GMT -5
But what if one knows one sees better knowing the experience is just an appearance? My impression is that you are asking a sincere question, but I think some of the words are in the wrong order or something. OK, how about this more verbose one? Do you agree that if IT is absolutely known that one is pure subjectivity and that all that is experienced is just an appearance (i.e., all is imagined and out front) to THAT subjectivity, one is more conscious of what is actually going on than when one is caught up in the illusion and identified as a personalized individuation appearing to said subjectivity? **whew, that was hard** |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 12:15:19 GMT -5
Why is he not imagining that the moon he is perceiving is coming out of mouth of unicorn? Why is he assume that the same copy is present there in the sky? What makes him such an assumption? It's the difference between just taking all that appears, happens, is experienced 'as experience' and not needing to know (actually seeing that nothing really c an be known for certain) about it's existence beyond the fact that it is appearing in experience. You admit that you can't know for certain whether other is figment or not, but seem to be arguing that you CAN know for certain how all that appears and arises, does so..? If so, I find that kind of odd. I can't know whether others are real or figment, that's right. But when you say '(actually seeing that nothing really can be known for certain)', you are bringing two context, one in which moon is mere appearance, another one is moon is received from outside, So you can't know which one is true, So you are saying that it can't be known for certain,right? But the problem here is, the second context is born out of speculation, that means outer is moon is speculated from inner moon. So there is no two context in which as you say we can't know for certain. There is only one context. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 12:18:29 GMT -5
Actually, I've never seen eyes gather light nor be used (by anyone or anything in particular) to transmit visual signals. Is there any context wherein any and all distinctions such as eyes, light, signals, gopals and even the thoughts that illude one into thinking such appearances are real collapse? yes, I even stated that context to Enigma last night and I'm pretty sure most here acknowledge that context. So what's interesting is when the other context goes missing. The other context doesn't go missing. On the contrary, the other context(s) is/are seen more clearly as being relative to each other to some extent, AND NOT CONFUSED with or seen as relative in value to "absolute context", which you seem to be claiming to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 12:19:38 GMT -5
I dunno. What do you mean by perceptual falsity? I mean the world is perceived to be flat, yet we know it is a globe. It's a perceptual falsity that the world is flat. At least according to the normal way that we conceive and describe the world. Oh. Then, no, that's not what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 12:25:51 GMT -5
I don't know. Neither do you. It also doesn't matter. Does a baby care if the mother is actual or not? You don't know? what? you don't know you are perceiving the moon? I know I am perceiving the moon, but anything beyond that is speculation. When a baby sees a dog the common reaction from the baby is joy. The baby is perceiving a dog, but it doesn't have learned knowledge about appearances, brains, consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 12:27:45 GMT -5
My impression is that you are asking a sincere question, but I think some of the words are in the wrong order or something. OK, how about this more verbose one? Do you agree that if IT is absolutely known that one is pure subjectivity and that all that is experienced is just an appearance (i.e., all is imagined and out front) to THAT subjectivity, one is more conscious of what is actually going on than when one is caught up in the illusion and identified as a personalized individuation appearing to said subjectivity? **whew, that was hard** I would say the result of the realization can be summarized as a more direct experience. The more verbiose question was actually easier for me to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 12:30:00 GMT -5
yes, I even stated that context to Enigma last night and I'm pretty sure most here acknowledge that context. So what's interesting is when the other context goes missing. The other context doesn't go missing. On the contrary, the other context(s) is/are seen more clearly as being relative to each other to some extent, AND NOT CONFUSED with or seen as relative in value to "absolute context", which you seem to be claiming to understand. The other context shouldn't go missing but it sometimes does. Its kind of like an over enthusiasm for the realization that has been had. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 12:31:48 GMT -5
You don't know? what? you don't know you are perceiving the moon? When a baby sees a dog the common reaction from the baby is joy. The baby is perceiving a dog, but it doesn't have learned knowledge about appearances, brains, consciousness. Yes, that's why I say outer world just exist only in speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 12:32:02 GMT -5
Actually, I've never seen eyes gather light nor be used (by anyone or anything in particular) to transmit visual signals. Is there any context wherein any and all distinctions such as eyes, light, signals, gopals and even the thoughts that illude one into thinking such appearances are real collapse?Why, yes there is. What we seem to be missing is some peeps who are interested in that.  And for some reason, when Truth is brought to bear, I keep imagining a squeaking noise.  Waaaaaiiiit. Is...(could it be?)...is that where the term peep squeak actually comes from?!   **Notice the distraction/denial/obfuscation/confusion/hope stick holding off the inevitable. I wonder how long one of those is designed to work?  |
|
