|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 4:20:36 GMT -5
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. So you don't believe 'that there is only what you are' ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:20:59 GMT -5
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 . I did not understand what you are saying.
I am saying I hugged my daughter but If my daughter is real, then her point of perception would receive feel of being hugged. If she is the figment, then it wouldn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 4:21:42 GMT -5
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?
What is it that you have realized yourself to be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:21:52 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. depends on context. Do you fancy answering the question I asked before? I highlighted 'your awareness', because I see that as a context mix. What's the context mix is happening here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:22:25 GMT -5
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. How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 4:22:38 GMT -5
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 . I did not understand what you are saying.
I am saying I hugged my daughter but If my daughter is real, then her point of perception would receive feel of being hugged. If she is the figment, then it wouldn't happen.
Who is hugging who? Who is doing the hugging? What you both are or something else?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 2, 2019 4:23:48 GMT -5
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 . I did not understand what you are saying. I am saying I hugged my daughter but If my daughter is real, then her point of perception would receive feel of being hugged. If she is the figment, then it wouldn't happen.
That suggests that the act of perceiving happens (or not) at the level of appearance (in this case your daughter). Either perceiving is infinite (prior to appearance), or finite (located at level of appearances).....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:24:00 GMT -5
I did not understand what you are saying.
I am saying I hugged my daughter but If my daughter is real, then her point of perception would receive feel of being hugged. If she is the figment, then it wouldn't happen.
Who is hugging who? Who is doing the hugging? What you both are or something else? You missed one of my post there, answer my question please there
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:24:31 GMT -5
Yes, I can't know about others, but I can know I exist. So you don't believe 'that there is only what you are' ? yes I believe.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 4:25:17 GMT -5
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?
There is only what you are . You are then comparing what you are and suggesting that what I AM is a brain . Your mixing positions .. There is only what you are means eggsactly that ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:25:49 GMT -5
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?
What is it that you have realized yourself to be? CONSCIOUSNESS.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 2, 2019 4:26:28 GMT -5
depends on context. Do you fancy answering the question I asked before? I highlighted 'your awareness', because I see that as a context mix. What's the context mix is happening here? well, if awareness is impersonal, then then there is no 'your or my' awareness
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:26:53 GMT -5
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?
There is only what you are . You are then comparing what you are and suggesting that what I AM is a brain . Your mixing positions .. There is only what you are means eggsactly that .. You believe this outer world and you believe you are perceiving the outer world,right?
If you believe in outer world, then you must believe in the existence of your body as well. Then your brain is what you are,eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:27:45 GMT -5
What's the context mix is happening here? well, if awareness is impersonal, then then there is no 'your or my' awareness You know that I don't wrestle with the logic which you created and it only works in your world, right?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 4:30:39 GMT -5
So you don't believe 'that there is only what you are' ? yes I believe. So if you believe there is only what you are, then you must believe that your daughter is that . If you believe that there is only what you are then whatever is done as a doing action is done by that which you are .. You don't control the actions of your daughter and yet fundamentally there is only what you are . How is that possible would you say?
|
|