Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 12:18:26 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. Just because there is the welling of a question, doesn't mean that there is a who to whom the welling belongs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 12:23:23 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. And this focus of attention is the act of perceiving.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 2, 2019 12:25:11 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.' Well stated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 12:27:55 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? Fast Forward 30 years: "I am said I am consciousness. But my father is appearing in my consciousness. So I can't know whether he is real. Do you get me?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 12:28:04 GMT -5
It's as if the movie projector is saying "I'm creating these images." Not really.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 2, 2019 12:44:47 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. I would say this is pointer to 'Possibility'. You would probably say 'Silence'? Though obviously they are also both wrong. (I'm needing a break from talking about UK politics )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 12:54:33 GMT -5
It's as if the movie projector is saying "I'm creating these images." Not really. Cinema: Without me this movie don't happen, like at all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 2, 2019 13:00:24 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 would say appearances seem to be appearing, which is therefore 'uncertain'. i know you and tenka spent some days hashing something out, but actually I see your boats as quite similar in many regards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 14:05:40 GMT -5
It's as if the movie projector is saying "I'm creating these images." Not really. Cinema: Without me this movie don't happen, like at all. Screenwriter: Right. You're the creator. I'm just a prop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 14:14:57 GMT -5
Cinema: Without me this movie don't happen, like at all. Screenwriter: Right. You're the creator. I'm just a prop. Editor: Without me, this thing ain't going anywhere soon.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 2, 2019 15:25:09 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. I would say this is pointer to 'Possibility'. You would probably say 'Silence'? Though obviously they are also both wrong. (I'm needing a break from talking about UK politics ) Heh, yep, exactly
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 2, 2019 15:28:27 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 would say appearances seem to be appearing, which is therefore 'uncertain'. i know you and tenka spent some days hashing something out, but actually I see your boats as quite similar in many regards. That’s interesting if true. And appearances appear to appear is really just a way of pointing to the merely provisional position of even that statement, no?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 2, 2019 16:22:21 GMT -5
I would say appearances seem to be appearing, which is therefore 'uncertain'. i know you and tenka spent some days hashing something out, but actually I see your boats as quite similar in many regards. That’s interesting if true. And appearances appear to appear is really just a way of pointing to the merely provisional position of even that statement, no? yes, I think so. I can't readily see the value of swapping from a certain reality of 'things' to a certain reality of 'appearances'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 20:17:23 GMT -5
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. I know. I was just explaining it to Gopal.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2019 20:21:40 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. I'm having great difficulty getting him to establish context for I/my. May you have better luck.
|
|