|
Post by laughter on Jan 30, 2017 2:12:19 GMT -5
(1): satch didn't say being aware of an object is timebound. (The object is timebound, awareness is not. So the issue is slightly confused). That sentence by satch is correct. (2): Not an assumption, not a belief. It is a fact for most people. Anybody want to explain why? (ZD would probably know immediately). (3): Not meaningless drivel, satch is correct here. You have to know what he is referencing, that is, from the ~inside~ (meaning, you have to have-been there). (4): ("I study philosophy"..). Studying philosophy is abstract/conceptual. What satch is referring to is 'nuts and bolts' immediate. What you say about (1) throws up a lot of interesting questions that cannot really be resolved conceptually. Awareness is unchanging yet the experience of an object which is dependent on awareness is changing as a movement of mind. Presence cannot be separated from both unchanging and changing so what makes presence of such interest is to do with identification. When the background of awareness is so well established and identified with so that it cannot be overshadowed by an object, then this is presence. Ape's philosophy will be of no help to her in the experience of that. But isn't "Presence", like .. always here??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 2:24:59 GMT -5
What you say about (1) throws up a lot of interesting questions that cannot really be resolved conceptually. Awareness is unchanging yet the experience of an object which is dependent on awareness is changing as a movement of mind. Presence cannot be separated from both unchanging and changing so what makes presence of such interest is to do with identification. When the background of awareness is so well established and identified with so that it cannot be overshadowed by an object, then this is presence. Ape's philosophy will be of no help to her in the experience of that. But isn't "Presence", like .. always here?? Yes, it's always here even though you might not know it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 30, 2017 3:07:54 GMT -5
But isn't "Presence", like .. always here?? Yes, it's always here even though you might not know it. Well Kemosabe, what, other than what changes and comes and goes could ever obscure what's always here? And what would that imply about the distinction between "Presence" and "the unchanging"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 3:15:27 GMT -5
Yes, it's always here even though you might not know it. Well Kemosabe, what, other than what changes and comes and goes could ever obscure what's always here? And what would that imply about the distinction between "Presence" and "the unchanging"? Well if we all know it's always there, why are we having a discussion about it? Substitute presence for sky. Can you imagine a thread called "what is the sky and how do you know it"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 30, 2017 4:46:18 GMT -5
Well Kemosabe, what, other than what changes and comes and goes could ever obscure what's always here? And what would that imply about the distinction between "Presence" and "the unchanging"? Well if we all know it's always there, why are we having a discussion about it? Substitute presence for sky. Can you imagine a thread called "what is the sky and how do you know it" What did I write that led to this hypothetical? "Presence" and "the unchanging" is a distinction without a difference (a.k.a. a DWAD), as illustrated by the fact that it's only ever what is changing, it's only ever what comes and goes, that obscures "Presence". Literal silence and motionlessness can be illuminating, especially (but of course, not only) to a beginner. But at some point, realizing that even the noisiest and monst chaotic situation is always the expression of an exquisitely still perfection is quite possible. Identifying with the unchanging is, at best, just a phase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 4:52:56 GMT -5
Well if we all know it's always there, why are we having a discussion about it? Substitute presence for sky. Can you imagine a thread called "what is the sky and how do you know it" What did I write that led to this hypothetical? "Presence" and "the unchanging" is a distinction without a difference (a.k.a. a DWAD), as illustrated by the fact that it's only ever what is changing, it's only ever what comes and goes, that obscures "Presence". Literal silence and motionlessness can be illuminating, especially (but of course, not only) to a beginner. But at some point, realizing that even the noisiest and monst chaotic situation is always the expression of an exquisitely still perfection is quite possible. Identifying with the unchanging is, at best, just a phase. Well no. What comes and goes doesn't necessarily disturb presence. But it might do if you think it's just a phase to identify with the unchanging.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 30, 2017 4:55:07 GMT -5
What did I write that led to this hypothetical? "Presence" and "the unchanging" is a distinction without a difference (a.k.a. a DWAD), as illustrated by the fact that it's only ever what is changing, it's only ever what comes and goes, that obscures "Presence". Literal silence and motionlessness can be illuminating, especially (but of course, not only) to a beginner. But at some point, realizing that even the noisiest and monst chaotic situation is always the expression of an exquisitely still perfection is quite possible. Identifying with the unchanging is, at best, just a phase. Well no. What comes and goes doesn't necessarily disturb presence. But it might do if you think it's just a phase to identify with the unchanging. I didn't state nor imply otherwise. Also, there's a significant distinction between "obscure" and "disturb".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 5:00:11 GMT -5
Well no. What comes and goes doesn't necessarily disturb presence. But it might do if you think it's just a phase to identify with the unchanging. I didn't state nor imply otherwise. Also, there's a significant distinction between "obscure" and "disturb". Two sides of the same coin.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 9:43:39 GMT -5
Well that is our loss for sure, see if you can go back, you are really not wanted here K. I find it very odd that you are not in a real KC forum, that would welcome you, I guess you were banned from them also. Don't you see a pattern here, you are very lucky Peter has not banned you for dumping as much as you do here. Peter is the moderator here? When does he come-in weekly? We should be big boys (and ladies) and should be able to self-moderate. You have a problem, get info to Peter, he is very fair, fair and balanced, like a fox.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 9:46:39 GMT -5
What you say about (1) throws up a lot of interesting questions that cannot really be resolved conceptually. Awareness is unchanging yet the experience of an object which is dependent on awareness is changing as a movement of mind. Presence cannot be separated from both unchanging and changing so what makes presence of such interest is to do with identification. When the background of awareness is so well established and identified with so that it cannot be overshadowed by an object, then this is presence. Ape's philosophy will be of no help to her in the experience of that. But isn't "Presence", like .. always here?? But ~you~ don't always coincide with-~it~. (That's what was being pointed out earlier).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 9:48:05 GMT -5
But isn't "Presence", like .. always here?? Yes, it's always here even though you might not know it. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by tuart on Jan 30, 2017 18:46:27 GMT -5
Peter is the moderator here? When does he come-in weekly? We should be big boys (and ladies) and should be able to self-moderate. You have a problem, get info to Peter, he is very fair, fair and balanced, like a fox. Peter would prefer if I lost my voice SDP. He is over worked by whingers it seems.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 19:14:42 GMT -5
We should be big boys (and ladies) and should be able to self-moderate. You have a problem, get info to Peter, he is very fair, fair and balanced, like a fox. Peter would prefer if I lost my voice SDP. He is over worked by whingers it seems. This place is most excellently civil compared to what it used to be (but then I do not read many threads). And the unmoderated section, is unmoderated (I post there virtually zero).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 30, 2017 22:43:05 GMT -5
But isn't "Presence", like .. always here?? But ~you~ don't always coincide with-~it~. (That's what was being pointed out earlier). It does sometimes seem that way to some peeps, yes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 30, 2017 22:45:22 GMT -5
I didn't state nor imply otherwise. Also, there's a significant distinction between "obscure" and "disturb". Two sides of the same coin. No, not at all. What is always present and eternal and changeless is unconditional, and not subject to disturbance. Any and all disturbance is only ever relative and temporary, and it is only what changes that is subject to disturbance. Only when "Presence" is obscured can that which is not present find itself disturbed. You see, the equanimity found in self-realization has nothing to do with being nice and polite to other peeps, but it does have everything to do with an embodied and living understanding of this point.
|
|