|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 3:24:28 GMT -5
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. There is only what you are . When you give your daughter a big hug, it is what you are that is hugging what you are on a fundamental level ... on a more personal level, it is gopal hugging the little princess For there to be hugging acknowledged and felt to then deny doing it is full of confusion, based upon not realizing what you are .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 3:48:40 GMT -5
We're a bit infatuated with entities. We expect to find one at the core of every perception, every creation. Watch Gopal chase entities across the universe and beyond. What if there are no entities, just Intelligence, rapt in it's own dream of love and loss? I am not chasing, I am saying no such entity exist. What is confused? Something that is not what you are? Do you believe that there is only what you are? And if there is only what you are how can there be confusion and clarity at the same time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 3:48:50 GMT -5
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. You are separating knowing and awareness . There are so many problems with your model . I am the only one here who is not separating the awareness from knowing. Rest of all here somehow at one level or another level separating both.
Coming to your point.
If you believe in Objective world, then awareness is receiving the perception from outer world, eh?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 3:50:37 GMT -5
We're a bit infatuated with entities. We expect to find one at the core of every perception, every creation. Watch Gopal chase entities across the universe and beyond. What if there are no entities, just Intelligence, rapt in it's own dream of love and loss? I am saying no such entity exist. By your own theory you can't know that hehehe .. You can't know anything about 'another' right?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 3:51:52 GMT -5
You are separating knowing and awareness . There are so many problems with your model . I am the only one here who is not separating the awareness from knowing. Rest of all here somehow at one level or another level separating both.
Coming to your point.
If you believe in Objective world, then awareness is receiving the perception from outer world, eh?
You said act of KNOWING can't be communicated to awareness .. There is only what you are Gopal how is it possible for your statement to be correct when there is only what you are .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 3:53:34 GMT -5
You are separating knowing and awareness . There are so many problems with your model .
If you believe in Objective world, then awareness is receiving the perception from outer world, eh?
Please don't start this again . There is only what you are encompasses all there is. All there is that exists as this or that . There is no need to add these layers of yours, they create unnecessary problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 3:55:15 GMT -5
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. There is only what you are . When you give your daughter a big hug, it is what you are that is hugging what you are on a fundamental level ... on a more personal level, it is gopal hugging the little princess For there to be hugging acknowledged and felt to then deny doing it is full of confusion, based upon not realizing what you are . But I don't have the way to know whether I am hugging the little princess or a figment which appear in my mind. But remember hugging is being experienced in awareness. That's the movement of perception.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 2, 2019 3:58:26 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. That's why I gave gopal a choice between the 2 options I see either infinite being is perceiving Or an individual/human being is perceiving. Gopal chose the 1st, so I explored that with him.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 3:58:35 GMT -5
There is only what you are . When you give your daughter a big hug, it is what you are that is hugging what you are on a fundamental level ... on a more personal level, it is gopal hugging the little princess For there to be hugging acknowledged and felt to then deny doing it is full of confusion, based upon not realizing what you are . But I don't have the way to know whether I am hugging the little princess or a figment which appear in my mind. But remember hugging is being experienced in awareness. That's the movement of perception. That's your problem isn't it . It's not my problem for I am not confused by what is happening . I am not confused about there being a doer or no doer either for there is only what you are .. Doing doesn't happen on it's own . E has referred to what we are in one instance as intelligence so in his case intelligence is the doer . If there is only intelligence and there is the experience of doing, then there can only be intelligence as the doer . It doesn't matter what you want to call what we are for there is only that . There is no point hugging your daughter and then saying I didn't hug her, 'intelligence did' because you can't separate intelligence from anything . All peeps are doing is dividing and separating intelligence from what you are that thinks it's not doing anything lol .. It's bonkers!! and full of issues .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 2, 2019 3:59:29 GMT -5
So you don't know such thing to be true, If you don't know then it's a speculation.
Case Closed.
It's a logical conclusion, which at this level of conceptualization, is appropriate. yes
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 2, 2019 4:03:35 GMT -5
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. depends on context. Do you fancy answering the question I asked before? I highlighted 'your awareness', because I see that as a context mix.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:05:59 GMT -5
There is only what you are . When you give your daughter a big hug, it is what you are that is hugging what you are on a fundamental level ... on a more personal level, it is gopal hugging the little princess For there to be hugging acknowledged and felt to then deny doing it is full of confusion, based upon not realizing what you are . But I don't have the way to know whether I am hugging the little princess or a figment which appear in my mind. But remember hugging is being experienced in awareness. That's the movement of perception. She's not a figment Gopal, she's a very precious expression, just as you are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:09:38 GMT -5
I am not chasing, I am saying no such entity exist. What is confused? Something that is not what you are? Do you believe that there is only what you are? And if there is only what you are how can there be confusion and clarity at the same time? I think you are not knowing about the argument which is going on now.
People here including me don't believe in Objective outer world, so the problem is, everything exist in perception, while everything exist in perception, who is creating that perception?
Some people like Satch say they don't know because If he admits that he creates then that would challenge his previous realization that he is not doer.
Some people like Enigma says awareness creates and perceives, but he knows that he as awareness doesn't have the control over arising perceptions, so the question to him again is who creates?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:14:48 GMT -5
I am saying no such entity exist. By your own theory you can't know that hehehe .. You can't know anything about 'another' right? Yes, I can't know about others, but I can know I exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:18:23 GMT -5
I am the only one here who is not separating the awareness from knowing. Rest of all here somehow at one level or another level separating both.
Coming to your point.
If you believe in Objective world, then awareness is receiving the perception from outer world, eh?
You said act of KNOWING can't be communicated to awareness .. There is only what you are Gopal how is it possible for your statement to be correct when there is only what you are . Let me go bit deeper now.
Assume there is a outer world which you are perceiving through your eyes. What's happening here. Let us see how tree is being perceived. The image of the tree is received by your eyes and eyes are communicating that image to your brain. So ultimately brain is perceiving, If Brain is realizing what's happening outside, then Brain is what you are! Do you really think your brain is what you are?
|
|