|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 5:56:44 GMT -5
What did you realize to be real? I exist and I am the view point of awareness. is this another one to put into the concept basket, or not? What did you realize to be real, I didn't ask for you to explain your existence .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 5:57:38 GMT -5
Appearance is not aware, Consciousness is aware. Since my daughter is appearing in my consciousness, I can't know whether she has any real view point like mine. Everything is consciousness . Everything is aware that is what you said . Now your saying not everything is aware but everything is consciousness and what we are . You are an appearance in consciousness are you not, so you are not aware? I did not say everything is consciousness, I said consciousness is aware. Where did I say everything is consciousness?
I am not an appearance in consciousness, appearances are appearing in consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 6:07:18 GMT -5
Everything is consciousness . Everything is aware that is what you said . Now your saying not everything is aware but everything is consciousness and what we are . You are an appearance in consciousness are you not, so you are not aware? I did not say everything is consciousness, I said consciousness is aware. Where did I say everything is consciousness?
I am not an appearance in consciousness, appearances are appearing in consciousness.
You said there is only what you are and what you are is consciousness and you said consciousness is aware. How are you appearing?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 6:08:02 GMT -5
Everything is consciousness . Everything is aware that is what you said . Now your saying not everything is aware but everything is consciousness and what we are . You are an appearance in consciousness are you not, so you are not aware? I did not say everything is consciousness, I said consciousness is aware. Where did I say everything is consciousness?
I am not an appearance in consciousness, appearances are appearing in consciousness.
So what is not consciousness and is still what you are of the mind-reality? And to bring to your attention again, you can't know what is real or what isn't in regards to other's and yet you seem to know what is consciousness and what isn't lol . It's not possible to conclude what you do and then say I don't know what is real .. You haven't even explained what the realization of what real is .
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 2, 2019 7:39:17 GMT -5
If that's the case, then Awareness is is perceiving, right?
Witnessing=perceiving.
Let's assume that's correct. Awareness as witness is perceiver. A witness needs an object in order to be the witness. What happens to the witness when there is no object to perceive? Witnessing, in the purest sense, is prior-to the distinctions that create object boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 2, 2019 7:47:51 GMT -5
Let's assume that's correct. Awareness as witness is perceiver. A witness needs an object in order to be the witness. What happens to the witness when there is no object to perceive? Witnessing, in the purest sense, is prior-to the distinctions that create object boundaries. it occurred to me yesterday as I skimmed satch's conversation with gopal that the concept of 'pure witnessing' or 'pure awareness/aware-ing' might be a relevant one.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 2, 2019 8:25:12 GMT -5
Everything is consciousness and consciousness is aware . Even if a tree appears in consciousness then the appearance is aware .. You have already agreed that the appearance of your daughter only came about because you did the sexy dance with your wife . What makes your appearance in consciousness potentially different from mine when all there is, aware consciousness? Appearance is not aware, Consciousness is aware. Since my daughter is appearing in my consciousness, I can't know whether she has any real view point like mine. You can't know that an appearance is not aware because you don't know if what appears is just an appearance. Do you see that in order to know what IS aware, you need to know what isn't and you can't know by your own admission . In order to know what is real you need to know what isn't. You can't even play around with the premise of not knowing about other's when you have already set a president for what each reference means / refers too / constitutes . Do you see this?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 2, 2019 8:42:19 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. Awareness aware of awareness does not involve sensing or somethings. This is where logic will fail us miserably. Correct, but Gopal, having never entered the state of nirviklpa samadhi has no reference for what Satch is claiming.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 2, 2019 9:33:20 GMT -5
Since awareness nature is to be aware of something, it would not miss out the object at any point in time. So don't worry. Awareness would never be left with no object. Remember those times you were walking home against the pre-monsoon winds? Was that a state of mind that was free of object-consciousness? Free of names, distinctions, .. distractions.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 2, 2019 9:47:45 GMT -5
Because you said everything is consciousness and consciousness is aware lol . Do you understand what your saying or implying? I am said I am consciousness. But my daughter is appearing in my consciousness. So I can't know whether she is real. Do you get me? Just wanted to say your questions are perfectly legitimate. See, if there are appearances, there is most certainly creation, and then what does the creating is indeed a question. That's why the truer theory (though it, like all theories, is also not quite true) is that there are no appearances. Appearance itself is a misconception. In the Vedantic scheme, if there are said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then the creator must exist. That would be God ("saguna brahman"). If there cannot be said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then these questions simply do not arise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 9:48:57 GMT -5
Since awareness nature is to be aware of something, it would not miss out the object at any point in time. So don't worry. Awareness would never be left with no object. Remember those times you were walking home against the pre-monsoon winds? Was that a state of mind that was free of object-consciousness? Free of names, distinctions, .. distractions. Yes, That's the perception. That's not left with no perception. The main problem people have here is., They assume there is a looker and they continue to assume perceptions are happening to that looker. The fact is looking is creating the looker, not the other way around. But still my basic question as to how creation is happening while I am perceiving the movement of perception. Because I am not the doer, but something is getting created is in my focus of attention. If I place myself to be an awareness and perceptions are happening to me, then it's okay for me but problem is I will be struck at only one perception for everlasting to everlasting. But that's not happening here. Perceptions are continue to change in my focus of attention. So If perceptions are changing then looking which appears to have a stable looker at the back is completely recreated in the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 10:19:34 GMT -5
I am said I am consciousness. But my daughter is appearing in my consciousness. So I can't know whether she is real. Do you get me? Just wanted to say your questions are perfectly legitimate. See, if there are appearances, there is most certainly creation, and then what does the creating is indeed a question. That's why the truer theory (though it, like all theories, is also not quite true) is that there are no appearances. Appearance itself is a misconception. In the Vedantic scheme, if there are said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then the creator must exist. That would be God ("saguna brahman"). If there cannot be said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then these questions simply do not arise. But how come there are no appearances? Its apparently appearing to me.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 2, 2019 10:25:48 GMT -5
Just wanted to say your questions are perfectly legitimate. See, if there are appearances, there is most certainly creation, and then what does the creating is indeed a question. That's why the truer theory (though it, like all theories, is also not quite true) is that there are no appearances. Appearance itself is a misconception. In the Vedantic scheme, if there are said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then the creator must exist. That would be God ("saguna brahman"). If there cannot be said to be objects, appearances, and creation, then these questions simply do not arise. But how come there are no appearances? Its apparently appearing to me. Yes, of course, that's the misconception. If you look very carefully into the I to whom appearances are apparently appearing, it will eventually become clear that the very idea that appearances are appearing is mistaken; it is based on a false conception of the I. When that conception falls, so does the appearances of "apparently appearing" things. But this is not something that can be understood through reason or logic alone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 10:44:13 GMT -5
But how come there are no appearances? Its apparently appearing to me. Yes, of course, that's the misconception. If you look very carefully into the I to whom appearances are apparently appearing, it will eventually become clear that the very idea that appearances are appearing is mistaken; it is based on a false conception of the I. When that conception falls, so does the appearances of "apparently appearing" things. But this is not something that can be understood through reason or logic alone. So there is no I either?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 2, 2019 10:46:04 GMT -5
Yes, of course, that's the misconception. If you look very carefully into the I to whom appearances are apparently appearing, it will eventually become clear that the very idea that appearances are appearing is mistaken; it is based on a false conception of the I. When that conception falls, so does the appearances of "apparently appearing" things. But this is not something that can be understood through reason or logic alone. So there is no I either? Not in the way you think there is. Technically speaking 'there cannot be said to be an I,' which is not exactly the same as saying 'there is no I.'
|
|