|
Post by tenka on Dec 3, 2019 9:02:23 GMT -5
Again you are mixing concepts up. You speak about 'my' world and then speak about natural laws and time and space . From a personal perspective they are not my laws nor am I the creator of time and space .. Sort out your contexts and then see if my theory holds up . If everything is what you are, it includes the world, laws, time, space. I'm speaking from the same perspective you are when you say 'everything is what you are'. I assume it's not exclusively a personal perspective. Now can you answer the question without all the mixing concepts malarkey? Your not speaking about everything that is what we are, you are homing on tenka as an individual and assuming tenka as an individual is responsible for everything that is .. I have spoken about individual responsibility before .. There is only what you are doesn't make my individual self responsible for the sun rotating around the earth .. You need to understand this .. This is why you assumed one idiotic expression means that all individuals are idiotic .. Understand my theory then get back to me .. Your just clutching at straws and speculating, and then saying my theory doesn't add up ..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 9:02:37 GMT -5
It's not an entity in it's own right. It does not have it's own existence. Otherwise, there would be what you are, and also entities that exist apart from what you are. I say your theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Firstly you made up something about something that isn't something and then speak about it in ways where you know of it .. What aspect of my theory doesn't add up in reflection of your knowings here that have no foundation? It's like you have made up a theory and then used it against my theory in a way to make your made up theory correct lol . I haven't said that what we are is intelligence, awareness, or consciousness .. I have said that what we are is intelligent, conscious and aware .. I hope you can see the difference .. In this respect, I can say what we are is all there is .. This includes the moon the elephant and the ocean ... it includes the personal and the non personal, form and no form . Instead of telling me what I'm saying, how about telling me what you believe? Are people entities that exist in their own right?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 3, 2019 9:05:31 GMT -5
Firstly you made up something about something that isn't something and then speak about it in ways where you know of it .. What aspect of my theory doesn't add up in reflection of your knowings here that have no foundation? It's like you have made up a theory and then used it against my theory in a way to make your made up theory correct lol . I haven't said that what we are is intelligence, awareness, or consciousness .. I have said that what we are is intelligent, conscious and aware .. I hope you can see the difference .. In this respect, I can say what we are is all there is .. This includes the moon the elephant and the ocean ... it includes the personal and the non personal, form and no form . Instead of telling me what I'm saying, how about telling me what you believe? Are people entities that exist in their own right? What is a person? Consciousness or something else? I have explained just now that what we are cannot be separated from our personalty or our character traits . How is it possible for there to be what we are that expresses as such?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 9:05:44 GMT -5
And yet there is confusion and clarity in the world. How does your model explain that? Each individual can entertain an array of thoughts and emotions for there isn't just one set thought or emotion lol . This is why you can have Self realized peeps and unrealized peeps, happy and sad peeps . In Gopal's instance, he is supposedly clear as a bell but has these ridiculous quandaries . It doesn't add up to be both as clear as a bell and yet so ignorant and confused at the same time .. Do you want to have another go at trying to bring my model down? So you were asking how there can confusion and clarity in a person at the same time if everything is what you are? If so, I'm done with that nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 9:10:40 GMT -5
The point of perception is not an entity. (it's a point of perception) Whatever Gopal refers himself to being, can't know what he refers to as another as being . This is his foundation . Forget about points of perception and what constitutes an entity just stick to his foundation . The discussion was about creator and perceiver entities. You made it about the idea of not knowing if the other is a point of perception (entity, in your words). Please try to follow along.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 3, 2019 9:12:45 GMT -5
Each individual can entertain an array of thoughts and emotions for there isn't just one set thought or emotion lol . This is why you can have Self realized peeps and unrealized peeps, happy and sad peeps . In Gopal's instance, he is supposedly clear as a bell but has these ridiculous quandaries . It doesn't add up to be both as clear as a bell and yet so ignorant and confused at the same time .. Do you want to have another go at trying to bring my model down? So you were asking how there can confusion and clarity in a person at the same time if everything is what you are? If so, I'm done with that nonsense. Read what I said, in Gopal's instance there cannot be both clarity and utter confusion at the same time . If you are Self realized and Clarity is your first name, then you cannot be confused regarding other's . What is difficult to understand about that statement?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 9:14:47 GMT -5
Did the phrase 'I AM' come to you? If so, how? I have a reference for I AM of this world . Beyond the thought of I AM there is no thought of I AM .. So obviously no, I didn't have a phrase of I AM beyond mind .. I had to state I AM in my reply to Gopal because otherwise it would make no sense to whom or what as an individual has transcended mind .. i have to talk in the present tense, in I AM awareness . I can say I AM without any problem at all . The problems arise, when peeps say they have realized what they are as being consciousness .. as we all have witnessed here on the forums . Why is 'Consciousness' a problem and 'I AM' not? They're both being used for the purpose you describe.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 3, 2019 9:15:14 GMT -5
Whatever Gopal refers himself to being, can't know what he refers to as another as being . This is his foundation . Forget about points of perception and what constitutes an entity just stick to his foundation . The discussion was about creator and perceiver entities. You made it about the idea of not knowing if the other is a point of perception (entity, in your words). Please try to follow along. I follow my conversation just fine thanks, it's just when other's interject causes some issues .. Gopal primarily needs to realize his own self, his own status in reflection of what is real and what is not .. He kan't say anything about enities not existing when by his own admission kan't know the status about another ..
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 9:15:55 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. There's no way it can be said that there are no appearances appearing. It's self evident. Pretending there's not so that no questions arise is the head-in-the-sand approach. I didn't say that there are no appearances appearing. I said there cannot be said to be appearances. But there's no point in arguing this. It's beyond logic. You either understand what I'm getting at or you don't. It sounds like you don't.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 9:17:01 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 3, 2019 9:17:27 GMT -5
I have a reference for I AM of this world . Beyond the thought of I AM there is no thought of I AM .. So obviously no, I didn't have a phrase of I AM beyond mind .. I had to state I AM in my reply to Gopal because otherwise it would make no sense to whom or what as an individual has transcended mind .. i have to talk in the present tense, in I AM awareness . I can say I AM without any problem at all . The problems arise, when peeps say they have realized what they are as being consciousness .. as we all have witnessed here on the forums . Why is 'Consciousness' a problem and 'I AM' not? They're both being used for the purpose you describe. I AM is not problematic, because I AM derives from being aware of oneself compared to not .. Consciousness is just a metaphor for what I AM is .. You have never realized Consciousness as being what you are, butt you realize I AM present .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2019 9:50:10 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. Appearances are certainly appearing. Nothing more is needed to prove that than the appearance of them. I can go as far as to say that they most certainly do seem to be.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 9:55:14 GMT -5
You could easily be referring to a person (or perhaps you are?) When you say 'there is only what I am', maybe you mean there is only Tenka? Or perhaps you're pointing to something else? What I am is experiencing life as a human being . What that entails has personal traits and characteristics and one cannot separate what we are from them or anything . If peeps want to destroy the thought of a there being a self or a person by replacing that thought with there is only consciousness, then as said before, all one is doing is personalising consciousness .. it's silly to do so .. The same goes for awareness .. one sticks two fingers up at the person and then personalises awareness .. You can sit here for a while trying to pick and separate the meat from the bone in order to try and find something that doesn't add up with what I have said, but please, stick to what I have said .. What we are 'as all there is' encompasses the experience of a personal touch without being separate from all there is and without there being the need for there being a personal experience that reflects that as being the sole creator of time and space and natural laws .What does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2019 10:09:43 GMT -5
Are you equating Consciousness to 'my consciousness'? If so, what egzakly do you mean by 'my consciousness'? You are the one who forms the point of perception. It would be my educated guess that this is the answer. 'My consciousness' sounds personal. The one who forms the point of perception is impersonal Consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 3, 2019 10:11:17 GMT -5
What I am is experiencing life as a human being . What that entails has personal traits and characteristics and one cannot separate what we are from them or anything . If peeps want to destroy the thought of a there being a self or a person by replacing that thought with there is only consciousness, then as said before, all one is doing is personalising consciousness .. it's silly to do so .. The same goes for awareness .. one sticks two fingers up at the person and then personalises awareness .. You can sit here for a while trying to pick and separate the meat from the bone in order to try and find something that doesn't add up with what I have said, but please, stick to what I have said .. What we are 'as all there is' encompasses the experience of a personal touch without being separate from all there is and without there being the need for there being a personal experience that reflects that as being the sole creator of time and space and natural laws .What does that mean? It means that what we are can experience individuality in such a way where one is not responsible for what Elvis does, nor is one as an individual the sole creator of natural laws, time and space . The individual is self awareness or awareness of self that encompasses the personal touch / attributes .. This in my eyes constitutes the person .. the person is awareness of the individual self, but like said it doesn't reflect an entity unto itself that is separate from what you are . This individual self/personality is not dependant on your perception in order to be. This is why at one time I declared that the individual exists in their own right, because the individual be it the tree or Elvis isn't dependant on a real perceiver perceiving them in order to be .. I have never declared that an individual persona is a separate entity that exists independently from something else .. I don't believe anyone has declared that or even suggested that ..
|
|