|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 12:33:21 GMT -5
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. Yes, that's why I say outer world just exist only in perception. Okay. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 12:38:02 GMT -5
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. I would say it is possible to answer in a more direct "yes" or "no". I did put in the extra effort to allow for it. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 12:42:25 GMT -5
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. Did you read what I said? It doesn't go missing, but is seen more clearly. Don't confuse "over enthusiasm" for the admonition of "abiding". As such, the suffering "experienced" is minimized when seen in the light of clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 12:49:12 GMT -5
Go for it. It's been a while since we had some fun giraffe pics.  I'm asking you for the link please! You've stated clearly and on numerous occasions that you don't read links provided to you. Are you being selective about which links you're willing to read? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 12:54:14 GMT -5
By appearance do you mean a perceptual falsity? What ? You don't what is the meaning of appearance even after the years of staying in STF? 'Tis strange, huh? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 12:55:37 GMT -5
What ? You don't what is the meaning of appearance even after the years of staying in STF? 'Tis strange, huh? Yeah! |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 12:59:25 GMT -5
When I say nothing has been said, I mean the conversation has been a bunch of obfuscation and distraction. I wonder if anyone here actually clicks on those links?  I read them and do learn a little more about the character of some of the characters that populate this board. I also notice it as an act of love, but which is received and judged as something else by a few said characters. That is interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 12:59:26 GMT -5
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. I would say it is possible to answer in a more direct "yes" or "no". I did put in the extra effort to allow for it. There were certain aspects of the question that made a direct answer a little tricky, so I tried to give an answer which would work for me but would still honour the question. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 13:00:52 GMT -5
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. Did you read what I said? It doesn't go missing, but is seen more clearly. Don't confuse "over enthusiasm" for the admonition of "abiding". As such, the suffering "experienced" is minimized when seen in the light of clarity. Yeah I read it but disagreed. I'm not saying it has to go missing just that it can do. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 13:01:35 GMT -5
I would say it is possible to answer in a more direct "yes" or "no". I did put in the extra effort to allow for it. There were certain aspects of the question that made a direct answer a little tricky, so I tried to give an answer which would work for me but would still honour the question. OK, thanks. Did the question cause a little dissonance or confusion? What was tricky about it? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 13:02:07 GMT -5
I'm asking you for the link please! You've stated clearly and on numerous occasions that you don't read links provided to you. Are you being selective about which links you're willing to read? I'd make an exception for enigma because I known just how much effort it would take for him to do it |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 13:09:14 GMT -5
There were certain aspects of the question that made a direct answer a little tricky, so I tried to give an answer which would work for me but would still honour the question. OK, thanks. Did the question cause a little dissonance or confusion? What was tricky about it? Well, as i see it, the realization doesn't bring with it an ongoing experience of being more conscious of what is actually going on, what ensues is a dropping of the sense of being separate. So its more of a subtraction than an addition in this sense. Aside from that, life goes on. I know what you mean, but i look at it a bit differently. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 13:19:00 GMT -5
Did you read what I said? It doesn't go missing, but is seen more clearly. Don't confuse "over enthusiasm" for the admonition of "abiding". As such, the suffering "experienced" is minimized when seen in the light of clarity. Yeah I read it but disagreed. I'm not saying it has to go missing just that it can do. Oh, I didn't read that you had disagreed. It "can do", as in "be enough", or "can go missing"? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 13:28:38 GMT -5
OK, thanks. Did the question cause a little dissonance or confusion? What was tricky about it? Well, as i see it, the realization doesn't bring with it an ongoing experience of being more conscious of what is actually going on, what ensues is a dropping of the sense of being separate. So its more of a subtraction than an addition in this sense. Aside from that, life goes on. I know what you mean, but i look at it a bit differently. So, you are saying that, based on the realization that you have had, the sense of being separate is dropped, but personhood goes on? To continue (assuming that's what you mean), you are saying that there is no difference in degree between one realizing "no separation" and "no self"? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 13:36:43 GMT -5
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. No. I'm not talking about either the moon being 'a mere' anything, or being 'received' or an outside vs. inside. Where did you read that in? Im simply saying that there's a point where experience is just taken at face value. If I see a moon, I see a moon. Nothing more needs to be said. |
|
