|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 7:57:47 GMT -5
I missed where that was said. If it was, I share your concern. What I heard him say is that Awareness is both creating and perceiving. But he is asking how that is the case. I'm sure you have heard yourself as an echo. At first maybe no recognition, you think someone else is speaking in the distance. Time enters as a factor. Time is also a factor, between the creating and the perceiving. Time and space. Time is one of the creations.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 3, 2019 8:24:36 GMT -5
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. I was the one who said that. (still conceding) Oops!
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Dec 3, 2019 8:28:20 GMT -5
Yes I agree. If I choose to, I can completely stop thinking for as long as I want. (without any effort). Not a single thought will arise. What I cannot tell you is who, how or why stops the thinking and starts it again.This is one of the fantastic question. Consciousness is witnessing the movement of thoughts/Perceptions. This consciousness is also inseparable from what's being perceived, If so, who is creating the movement of thoughts? Ask this question to yourself. Answer might surprise you! The answer itself mutes the answer. THE conclusion to all questions/questing is in the realization of Self and the subsequent stilling of mind. The conclusion to thought does not result from a thought-based answer, but in the ceasing of the thought process.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 9:28:48 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with any 'I' concept. No identification is needed for appearances to appear. Wrong. If there are appearances, there is most certainly an I to whom they appear. To say otherwise is pure self-deception. Why do say so? There appears to be an assumption of sorts being made.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 9:36:05 GMT -5
Wrong. If there are appearances, there is most certainly an I to whom they appear. To say otherwise is pure self-deception. Why do say so? There appears to be an assumption of sorts being made. If appearances are said to appear, then the category of appearances is being 'bought into.' That category (like all categories) rests on the assumption of a separate I. The very meaning of an appearance is founded on a subject/object split. What appears by definition appears to a subjective consciousness -- it is "appeared to" or "cognized" or else it couldn't be known. This is why in Vedanta there is the talk of the 'burnt rope' ego etc. -- the ego post-realization. If there is said to be a world post-realization, then an ego must remain in some sense to cognize it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 3, 2019 9:37:18 GMT -5
Um. It's like. A whole state. Establishing a required first step out of mind to Here is likely not gonna pass the smell test. A strange state of affairs.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2019 9:45:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 10:29:18 GMT -5
Why do say so? There appears to be an assumption of sorts being made. If appearances are said to appear, then the category of appearances is being 'bought into.' That category (like all categories) rests on the assumption of a separate I. The very meaning of an appearance is founded on a subject/object split. What appears by definition appears to a subjective consciousness -- it is "appeared to" or "cognized" or else it couldn't be known. This is why in Vedanta there is the talk of the 'burnt rope' ego etc. -- the ego post-realization. If there is said to be a world post-realization, then an ego must remain in some sense to cognize it. Saying that perceiving appearances requires perceiving an I/self is a bit of a stretch. The assumption of the separate I, yes, is based on the same assumption of the subject/object split. They are illusions based on and maintained as beliefs in the mind. The ideas arise in consciousness as either assumptions or separate thoughts and, due to the power of the conditioning in their support, are believed. Do you still believe there’s an I even now, and that there are only temporary cessations while in samadhi?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 10:32:22 GMT -5
Wrong. If there are appearances, there is most certainly an I to whom they appear. To say otherwise is pure self-deception. Why do say so? There appears to be an assumption of sorts being made. Hi, what is your mother tongue?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 10:59:51 GMT -5
If appearances are said to appear, then the category of appearances is being 'bought into.' That category (like all categories) rests on the assumption of a separate I. The very meaning of an appearance is founded on a subject/object split. What appears by definition appears to a subjective consciousness -- it is "appeared to" or "cognized" or else it couldn't be known. This is why in Vedanta there is the talk of the 'burnt rope' ego etc. -- the ego post-realization. If there is said to be a world post-realization, then an ego must remain in some sense to cognize it. Saying that perceiving appearances requires perceiving an I/self is a bit of a stretch. The assumption of the separate I, yes, is based on the same assumption of the subject/object split. They are illusions based on and maintained as beliefs in the mind. The ideas arise in consciousness as either assumptions or separate thoughts and, due to the power of the conditioning in their support, are believed. Do you still believe there’s an I even now, and that there are only temporary cessations while in samadhi? I neither believe that there can be said to be an I even now nor that there can be said to be appearances. And what “I believe” is therefore not the right way of even putting it. It’s not really about what “I believe.” The “assumption” of the I IS the assumption of the subject, which follows from the assumption of an object (appearance).
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 11:00:09 GMT -5
Why do say so? There appears to be an assumption of sorts being made. Hi, what is your mother tongue? English with an occasional drawl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 11:09:44 GMT -5
Hi, what is your mother tongue? English with an occasional drawl occasional drawl?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 11:14:33 GMT -5
Saying that perceiving appearances requires perceiving an I/self is a bit of a stretch. The assumption of the separate I, yes, is based on the same assumption of the subject/object split. They are illusions based on and maintained as beliefs in the mind. The ideas arise in consciousness as either assumptions or separate thoughts and, due to the power of the conditioning in their support, are believed. Do you still believe there’s an I even now, and that there are only temporary cessations while in samadhi? I neither believe that there can be said to be an I even now nor that there are appearances. Samadhis are appearances. The assumption of the I IS the belief in the subject, which follows from the belief in an object (appearance). I tend to treat appearances differently, and don't lump cognitive mental processes in with simpler 5/6 senses type stuff. Clearly, a tree can be seen without thinking/believing/assuming there's an "I" looking at it. Once the thinking starts revving up, that kind if self-referential stuff can come back to the forefront and take on a larger role, sure. Do you still assume there's an I even now? Or is it that you know there are still residual synapses that would be able to assume there is and just remain vigilant of the lil mayanese meme lurking in the shadows? Essentially, you're saying the word can't be the thingless thang and/or that appearances are not outside the thingless thang that you are.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 11:15:56 GMT -5
English with an occasional drawl occasional drawl? I'm an American from the south, much like your are from the south of India! Btw, your daughter is such a cutie! I bet you love coming home.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 11:52:25 GMT -5
The crux of the matter is the "I" to which appearances are appearing. That "I" disappears in deep sleep and consequently so do the appearances. It too must be an appearance that comes and goes. Are you the disappearing "I"? Are you not the disappearing "I"? Trying to answer these questions can become a riveting hobby.
|
|