Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 22:17:52 GMT -5
I thought you asked how is perception happening. It's happening because I am. He asked what is creating your perception. yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 22:53:58 GMT -5
What? you also agreed that Awareness as a witness is perceiving. If so, what is the other kind of mode it's entering while it is experiencing itself ? If it can sense something, then there is perception. I presented it as a hypothesis by saying let us assume.... You can call awareness whatever you want but I'm just trying to examine the logic since you are so keen on using logic yourself. We speak of perceiving an object, but awareness is not an object and if it experience itself as the ultimate subject can we call that perceiving? Is pure knowingness perceiving? Moreover if objects are just appearances in awareness, or awareness appearing as form, these objects are therefore no different to awareness so is there really any perceiving happening by anyone or anything or not thing? I am seeing you are continuously seeing your flaw and modifying while the argument is going on. Sometimes you were not realizing your mistake but while the argument moves, you are realizing and modifying your theory. Sometimes you got into some trap and then you are once again modifying. Even if you don't admit this to be true, that's what happening. For an example, you said I can take awareness as a creator, then when I asked 'you said you are not the doer, but now you say you are the doer', you are understanding your mistake and trying to escape by introducing another theory. It's okay if you are learning from your mistake. Let me continue to reply to this post in my next post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:00:21 GMT -5
What? you also agreed that Awareness as a witness is perceiving. If so, what is the other kind of mode it's entering while it is experiencing itself ? If it can sense something, then there is perception. I presented it as a hypothesis by saying let us assume.... You can call awareness whatever you want but I'm just trying to examine the logic since you are so keen on using logic yourself. We speak of perceiving an object, but awareness is not an object and if it experience itself as the ultimate subject can we call that perceiving? Is pure knowingness perceiving? Moreover if objects are just appearances in awareness, or awareness appearing as form, these objects are therefore no different to awareness so is there really any perceiving happening by anyone or anything or not thing? Any kind of KNOWING is perceiving. KNOWING means you know, awareness is knowing! Case over! That's the foremost reason you eliminated the idea of Awareness is being a perceiver because you know perceiver can't exist without perception. So It's your turn to answer now to answer your question of 'What happens to the witness when there is no object to perceive?' You are sometimes feel the problem but you are escaping from there by saying 'I don't know' For an example, what's creating the perception in your awareness is the question to you is still pending. Can you answer now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:03:36 GMT -5
Sure.You are right here that you should not be having this problem when you believe in objective reality. This problem is for the people those who believe that universe exist only in perception.
Yes, exactly.
Well you might want to investigate why such a theory doesn't create confusion .. and adds up under scrutiny . Objective World has it's own problem because the act of KNOWING can't be communicated to awareness through some way. For an example perceiving moon via your eyes. Awareness is simply the process of knowing,nothing else. It can't receive IMAGE from somewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:08:23 GMT -5
The person is literally an expression of limitation. Not an entity, not a doer, but it is an expression of Awareness, which is also not a doer or an entity. Well that's a given because the person reflects the individual .. As soon as you start to associate the person as an expression of awareness you again add unnecessary layers .. (just saying) .. and to point out again that your other post reflected that consciousness and awareness are just pointers . What we are is all there is . What we are is the doer .There cannot be a non doer when doing is happening . To say there is no entity when there is an entity is denial . When there is no entity, there is no doer . Calling the doer as an example as awareness and then suggesting awareness doesn't do, is silly .. One might as well personalise awareness as the doer, while there is an individual present .. It all goes boobs up when one dismisses the doer because of there being no doer beyond doing . Except you and Andrew,everybody here knows that we are not the doer. We are not the doer because we are only perceiving, Our nature of perception wouldn't allow us to choose between thoughts because we don't what thought it is until it lands on in your awareness and also your present moment is always occupied either by perception or by thought. So the main question arises as to how this perception and thoughts are getting created while we are busy with perceiving.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 1, 2019 23:09:50 GMT -5
Both. That's what 'creation and perception are the same' means. What's the difference between perceiving what's arising, and passively witnessing? FWIW, the passive witness is a contrived mental state. There isn't really a passive witness. Creation does not imply free will. Free will implies mental activity, and the language of God is feeling. Nope. Perception is Creation, no doubt. But you are only perceiving, you are not creating, eh? That's the reason Satch is not agreeing here. He clearly knows that he is not creating that perception. That's the reason he is giving any strong statement there.
You've made it clear numerous times that for you "I" means Awareness. I, as Awareness, am both creating and perceiving. Creating as formlessness, perceiving as form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:11:51 GMT -5
Nope. Perception is Creation, no doubt. But you are only perceiving, you are not creating, eh? That's the reason Satch is not agreeing here. He clearly knows that he is not creating that perception. That's the reason he is giving any strong statement there.
You've made it clear numerous times that for you "I" means Awareness. I, as Awareness, am both creating and perceiving. Creating as formlessness, perceiving as form. You are only perceiving, you are not creating, aren't you see this clearly? You are not creating your thoughts, you are perceiving while it's moving. That's the reason is Satch is not answering here because he knows he is not the author of the arising thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:14:04 GMT -5
Okay, so you say What You Are creates your perception,right? The problem we have been discussing here is, how it can perceives while simultaneously it involves in the creation of the same perception. I have been arguing with Satch so far. He gets confused because he has been saying so far that he is not the doer but now he doesn't know whether he is the doer or not.
This is where the idea of God falling into his own dream becomes useful, but I know you resist that idea. How does the God falling into the dream is useful here? he doesn't know he creates? Huh? Now once again the same question to you, you are only perceiving, aren't you? You are not creating your thoughts and perceptions,eh?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 1, 2019 23:14:21 GMT -5
Your position is that awareness is a witness/perceiver because there will always be an object for awareness to perceive. That's not true. I say that awareness can just experience itself without an object. So if it's not perceiving anything then what is it? What? you also agreed that Awareness as a witness is perceiving. If so, what is the other kind of mode it's entering while it is experiencing itself ? If it can sense something, then there is perception. Awareness aware of awareness does not involve sensing or somethings. This is where logic will fail us miserably.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 1, 2019 23:14:27 GMT -5
I presented it as a hypothesis by saying let us assume.... You can call awareness whatever you want but I'm just trying to examine the logic since you are so keen on using logic yourself. We speak of perceiving an object, but awareness is not an object and if it experience itself as the ultimate subject can we call that perceiving? Is pure knowingness perceiving? Moreover if objects are just appearances in awareness, or awareness appearing as form, these objects are therefore no different to awareness so is there really any perceiving happening by anyone or anything or not thing? I am seeing you are continuously seeing your flaw and modifying while the argument is going on. Sometimes you were not realizing your mistake but while the argument moves, you are realizing and modifying your theory. Sometimes you got into some trap and then you are once again modifying. Even if you don't admit this to be true, that's what happening. For an example, you said I can take awareness as a creator, then when I asked 'you said you are not the doer, but now you say you are the doer', you are understanding your mistake and trying to escape by introducing another theory. It's okay if you are learning from your mistake. Let me continue to reply to this post in my next post.
Can you quote me where I said I was the doer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:14:37 GMT -5
Sure.You are right here that you should not be having this problem when you believe in objective reality. This problem is for the people those who believe that universe exist only in perception.
Yes, exactly.
But of course his belief in an objective reality brings with it it's own set of problems. yes, I know of that. But what is the set of problems do you consider? may I know?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:16:33 GMT -5
So some kind of object which is arising in awareness is perceiving? A point of perception. (Not an object or entity) That's not what he was saying, he was saying 'I am is an object in Awareness'
He thinks that perceiver and object both are arising in awareness and while he goes to sleep or some kind of samadhi, he believes that both perceiver and objects falls away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:18:15 GMT -5
What backs up your claim? what kind of Infinite being you know before that was perceiving everything together? Infinite Being, by definition, has no boundaries on perception, which is clearly happening. The problem is a result of manipulating our own concepts as though they are ultimately true. 'Infinite Being" is being used to point to one aspect of 'THIS' and creation/perception is being used to point to another aspect. Forcing them to refer to the same 'thing' is going to lead to problems. Actually here, what we assign the meaning of infinite is depends upon person to person. You may say it's infinite because it can create anything in the next moment, but Andrew is saying it includes everything including past,present,future in it's single focus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:19:38 GMT -5
What about when you're in dreamless sleep? There's nothing happening. How do you know? Can you tell me where does your nightly dream starts? You know that it must have started somewhere,right? While you can't even know where does your nightly dream starts, while you can't even remember the starting point of your nightly dream how come you know what happened before the starting point of night dream? How do you even know your nightly dream started?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 23:23:40 GMT -5
What happens to the witness in dreamless sleep is Enigma's speciality, not mine. You know from your own experience that dreamless sleep is absent experience. (nothing happening) Speculation after speculation. Read my above post.
|
|