|
Post by laughter on Dec 2, 2019 10:55:12 GMT -5
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. So many different facets of potential existential insight. In terms of the nature of objects, I rezz with flolks who've had psychedelic experiences or have gone deep into tantra (knowingly or otherwise). It's deep water, and a completely different conversation that has little to directly do with "SR". I think there are other paths to the insight, including the new-age notion that everything's connected. This can tend to operate on one's sense of reality, subconsciously, over time.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 11:02:17 GMT -5
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.
The first part means there is only what you are, including creation/perception, snips and snails and puppy dogs tails. The second part addresses personal awareness and implies there can be awareness without there being awareness of something, contrary to what you say. Try not to confuse the two subtopics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 11:05:41 GMT -5
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.' There is apparently perceiving is happening. More or less everybody here would agree with that. I think you are completely in a separate boat. And also most of the people here know of the truth that there is no doer. So it is placing us into passive witnessing mode. Ao automatically the questions wells up as to who is creating the movement of perception in our focus.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 2, 2019 11:14:31 GMT -5
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.' There is apparently perceiving is happening. More or less everybody here would agree with that. I think you are completely in a separate boat. And also most of the people here know of the truth that there is no doer. So it is placing us into passive witnessing mode. Ao automatically the questions wells up as to who is creating the movement of perception in our focus. Yes, as I said, if you have the conception that appearances appear, then you will have the question as to how they appear, and you will have to posit a God who creates them... But appearances cannot be said to appear. Yes, perhaps I am in a separate boat on this point, hard to say.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2019 11:19:04 GMT -5
I don't know whether she is aware. How would I know? Because you said everything is consciousness and consciousness is aware lol . Do you understand what your saying or implying? Gopal is master of honesty and logic. Did you ever see the movie Tron? Probably not. Jeff Bridges play Flynn. He is a programmer. He used to work for a company working on AI. The company head is up to nefarious purposes. He had stolen some of Flynn's programming, actually some important stuff that led to breakthroughs in AI. Flynn breaks in the corporation and hacks looking for proof the bad guy stole his ideas. And then he is kidnapped by the Master Control Program, a laser digitizes Flynn, transforms his flesh and blood into information. So now Flynn is actually in the computer. He begins to interact with people-like programs. These are kept in the dark about their creator-programmers. But there are rumors among the people-like-programs that, outside the computer exists beings who programmed them, their User. Flynn eventually meets Tron. Flynn is friends with Tron's User, Alan. So then Flynn spills the news, He (Flynn) is a User. So he confirms to the people-like-programs that Users are in fact real, that he himself is a User. Well...they treat him like a god. OK, it moves on from there...pretty good for 1982. So what Gopal is saying, by way of analogy, is he knows that he is a User. But he doesn't know if his daughter, or anyone else, is a User or merely a people-like-program. And, from the principle of non-volition, we could all be merely programming, living as simulations in a computer world. We could really already be living in a "Second World", and Second Worlds are really third worlds. Another pretty good movie along these lines, The Thirteenth Floor.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 2, 2019 11:32:43 GMT -5
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. Just as the looking creates the looker, your questioning is creating both the question and the questioner. You already know you're not the doer, you already know that there is no logical, intellectual answer to this. You know that the concensus-objective-reality is false, and you know the power of not-knowing. Also, your earnestness is very obvious, and the fact of your intense interest indicates you can intuit that what you're asking, does, most definitely, have an answer. So. You're in an auspicious place. How do you intend to proceed? How do you intend to pursue this question?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 2, 2019 11:38:09 GMT -5
The Awareness that you are creates and perceives. So you wouldn't agree with laffy who said the word 'creation' is being used as a concession to mind's stories about how stuff appears. Sorry to nit-pick, and it's not at all important, I'm just keeping the record straight, it was E' who wrote that, I just cheered it on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 11:38:24 GMT -5
There is apparently perceiving is happening. More or less everybody here would agree with that. I think you are completely in a separate boat. And also most of the people here know of the truth that there is no doer. So it is placing us into passive witnessing mode. Ao automatically the questions wells up as to who is creating the movement of perception in our focus. Yes, as I said, if you have the conception that appearances appear, then you will have the question as to how they appear, and you will have to posit a God who creates them... But appearances cannot be said to appear. Yes, perhaps I am in a separate boat on this point, hard to say. I exist and I am perceiving these two lines can't be falsified.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 2, 2019 11:41:42 GMT -5
Yes, as I said, if you have the conception that appearances appear, then you will have the question as to how they appear, and you will have to posit a God who creates them... But appearances cannot be said to appear. Yes, perhaps I am in a separate boat on this point, hard to say. I exist and I am perceiving these two lines can't be falsified. They can be and are -- for every word in those lines is a category. All categories are established on the sense of separation that stems from the false I. I know they seem irresistibly true. That, of course, is the illusion.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2019 11:46:49 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. Yes, very good. But don't you see that this is why it's necessary to bring to the table, levels? The Base, the Ground, Source, Infinite Being, has no boundaries. But look around, look at our world, we have to deal with our experience. We live and experience the dual world, your very post points this out. OTOH there is Infinite Being. OTOH there is creation/perception. From the standpoint of Infinite Being, there is only One, Wholeness. But from our standpoint, most everybody, we experience multiplicity and fragmentation. ~This~, is relatively real, real enough that we experience blood, sweat and tears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 11:47:28 GMT -5
I exist and I am perceiving these two lines can't be falsified. They can be and are -- for every word in those lines is a category. All categories are established on the sense of separation that stems from the false I. I know they seem irresistibly true. That, of course, is the illusion. Enjoy with your logic!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 11:48:32 GMT -5
I did not proclaimed to have any. I said your failure to recall the starting point of the dream tells me you can't conclude something is not present in the deep sleep. When you tell someone about your dream, you relate it from where it began to where it ended. This suspicion that it began before the beginning that you remember, is not a failure to recall.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 2, 2019 11:52:20 GMT -5
I have never denied that creation is perception,Did I ever do? That's the weaving part. The rending part comes when you try to separate creator from perceiver again. It requires a minimum of three levels to sort all this out, how the world of duality is simultaneously Infinite Being.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 11:57:42 GMT -5
"West til you smell it. South til you step in it." Um. It's like. A whole state. I know. I'm really bad, but heck I'm not real.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 2, 2019 12:06:53 GMT -5
Um. It's like. A whole state. I know. I'm really bad, but heck I'm not real. (** shakes imaginary head sadly **)
|
|