|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 17, 2024 13:40:22 GMT -5
Who said anything about 'other' individuals? I said it doesn't have to be one or the other didn't I. You spoke about individual perspectives on the other thread. So why is it so difficult for you to envisage individuality as I have put it across? You disagree then you speak about individuality as I have spoken of it lol. Let me say it again. Individuality doesn't reflect separation. It's something I have spoken about for a decade butt non dualists just put the blinkers on and put their fingers in their ears. Like said. If you understand this, the premise of individuals must equate to illusory separate peeps will fall flat on it's face. The SVP has always been a red herring. It always will be until peeps understand the nature of individuality. I disagree about separate individual but not with individuated perspective of "All That Is" If the individuated perspective is no more than that then what can an individuated perspective do eggsactly? You said before that you know that you are a real perceiver. Is a real perceiver therefore just a perspective had that isn't actual? All this chasing you speak about, is that an actual experience had by individuals? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 17, 2024 22:04:52 GMT -5
I disagree about separate individual but not with individuated perspective of "All That Is" You said before that you know that you are a real perceiver. Is a real perceiver therefore just a perspective had that isn't actual? All this chasing you speak about, is that an actual experience had by individuals? Just witnessing. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 18, 2024 5:42:12 GMT -5
If the individuated perspective is no more than that then what can an individuated perspective do eggsactly?You said before that you know that you are a real perceiver. Is a real perceiver therefore just a perspective had that isn't actual? All this chasing you speak about, is that an actual experience had by individuals? Just witnessing. How do you witness? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 18, 2024 5:48:34 GMT -5
If the individuated perspective is no more than that then what can an individuated perspective do eggsactly?You said before that you know that you are a real perceiver. Is a real perceiver therefore just a perspective had that isn't actual? All this chasing you speak about, is that an actual experience had by individuals? Just witnessing. Butt it's not the individual perspective that witnesses is it? A perspective can't do any thing right? It's incredibly difficult to follow your premise based upon things you say and things you don't. What is the difference between a real perceiver and an individual perspective that is witnessing? Then there is this thing about chasing and things that are not in your control as you have spoken about. Why are you speaking about the issues with chasing when you are telling the forum that the individual perspective can only witness. What is chasing? All that is? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 18, 2024 6:32:53 GMT -5
Butt it's not the individual perspective that witnesses is it? A perspective can't do any thing right? It's incredibly difficult to follow your premise based upon things you say and things you don't. What is the difference between a real perceiver and an individual perspective that is witnessing? Then there is this thing about chasing and things that are not in your control as you have spoken about. Why are you speaking about the issues with chasing when you are telling the forum that the individual perspective can only witness. What is chasing? All that is? OK, this is a very big SPOILER! ALERT! OK, I found the right clip, so not a major spoiler alert after all. Next is based on a short story by Philip K D!ck. The main character can go 2 minutes into the future. So he can then change the present on the basis of how he sees what's going to happen in the future, if nothing changes. There are about ten major films based on the works of PKD. From reading about PKD, some of his works, and these films, I'm 99% sure he had the ability to become unstuck in time. He is sure he experienced living a life about 100AD, that is, in this life as PKD he experienced that life. He was basically a Christian Gnostic in that life. You can't actually say it was a former life, as he experiences it IRT. He wrote tons of material about the last ten years of his life trying to figure it all out. He called it his Exegesis. During that time, he wrote more of his Exegesis than he did for publication, and that's how he earned money to live. He died in 1982. He didn't get to see the completion of Blade Runner, based on his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? But he saw footage of it, and he loved it. Just to be clear, that last part isn't about the film, it's about PKD's actual life. But, we go most of the film and we don't see how Cris sees the world when he can see the future. We see replays, or, advance fast forwards, but not multiple possible realities in quick succession, until much later. He can go into the future as many times as he wants to. It starts out, he sees meeting this girl, a certain time and place, a restaurant, but he doesn't know which day. So he goes there every day, to see if that's the day. He obviously eventually does meet her (and that's funny in itself, he has to have several tries to get it right, and he gets beat up in the process). At a certain point we learn Cris can go only 2 minutes into the future, except for his new girl, he can go further into the circumstances of her life, at least two hours into her life, but only as it concerns her. I found the clip I was looking for, he says: "Here's the thing, when you observe something, you change what you observe, and then that changes you, and then that changes what you observe, and that changes everything". I was close. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 18, 2024 8:19:39 GMT -5
Do you understand that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Individuality doesn't have to reflect there being others' that reflect separation. Do you understand that this could be so even though you kant prove it. As there are no other individuals anyway. But the point taken here for the discussion is, whether 'Infinite Being' has some other viewpoint like yours. And very obviously it doesn't have the way to know it. I'd like to avoid going down old argument pathways, but something you said here does interest me. What does 'Infinite Being' (I think you also referred to 'Infinite Being' as 'All That Is') know and not-know? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 18, 2024 9:52:34 GMT -5
If the individuated perspective is no more than that then what can an individuated perspective do eggsactly?You said before that you know that you are a real perceiver. Is a real perceiver therefore just a perspective had that isn't actual? All this chasing you speak about, is that an actual experience had by individuals? Just witnessing. If you will answer this, this will get us a long way. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 18, 2024 13:16:31 GMT -5
Butt it's not the individual perspective that witnesses is it? A perspective can't do any thing right? It's incredibly difficult to follow your premise based upon things you say and things you don't. What is the difference between a real perceiver and an individual perspective that is witnessing? Then there is this thing about chasing and things that are not in your control as you have spoken about. Why are you speaking about the issues with chasing when you are telling the forum that the individual perspective can only witness. What is chasing? All that is? OK, this is a very big SPOILER! ALERT! OK, I found the right clip, so not a major spoiler alert after all. Next is based on a short story by Philip K D!ck. The main character can go 2 minutes into the future. So he can then change the present on the basis of how he sees what's going to happen in the future, if nothing changes. There are about ten major films based on the works of PKD. From reading about PKD, some of his works, and these films, I'm 99% sure he had the ability to become unstuck in time. He is sure he experienced living a life about 100AD, that is, in this life as PKD he experienced that life. He was basically a Christian Gnostic in that life. You can't actually say it was a former life, as he experiences it IRT. He wrote tons of material about the last ten years of his life trying to figure it all out. He called it his Exegesis. During that time, he wrote more of his Exegesis than he did for publication, and that's how he earned money to live. He died in 1982. He didn't get to see the completion of Blade Runner, based on his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? But he saw footage of it, and he loved it. Just to be clear, that last part isn't about the film, it's about PKD's actual life. But, we go most of the film and we don't see how Cris sees the world when he can see the future. We see replays, or, advance fast forwards, but not multiple possible realities in quick succession, until much later. He can go into the future as many times as he wants to. It starts out, he sees meeting this girl, a certain time and place, a restaurant, but he doesn't know which day. So he goes there every day, to see if that's the day. He obviously eventually does meet her (and that's funny in itself, he has to have several tries to get it right, and he gets beat up in the process). At a certain point we learn Cris can go only 2 minutes into the future, except for his new girl, he can go further into the circumstances of her life, at least two hours into her life, but only as it concerns her. I found the clip I was looking for, he says: "Here's the thing, when you observe something, you change what you observe, and then that changes you, and then that changes what you observe, and that changes everything". I was close. For some reason it reminded me for a minute of Bruce Lee's s fight scene in the room of mirrors  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 18, 2024 15:47:34 GMT -5
OK, this is a very big SPOILER! ALERT! OK, I found the right clip, so not a major spoiler alert after all. Next is based on a short story by Philip K D!ck. The main character can go 2 minutes into the future. So he can then change the present on the basis of how he sees what's going to happen in the future, if nothing changes. There are about ten major films based on the works of PKD. From reading about PKD, some of his works, and these films, I'm 99% sure he had the ability to become unstuck in time. He is sure he experienced living a life about 100AD, that is, in this life as PKD he experienced that life. He was basically a Christian Gnostic in that life. You can't actually say it was a former life, as he experiences it IRT. He wrote tons of material about the last ten years of his life trying to figure it all out. He called it his Exegesis. During that time, he wrote more of his Exegesis than he did for publication, and that's how he earned money to live. He died in 1982. He didn't get to see the completion of Blade Runner, based on his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? But he saw footage of it, and he loved it. Just to be clear, that last part isn't about the film, it's about PKD's actual life. But, we go most of the film and we don't see how Cris sees the world when he can see the future. We see replays, or, advance fast forwards, but not multiple possible realities in quick succession, until much later. He can go into the future as many times as he wants to. It starts out, he sees meeting this girl, a certain time and place, a restaurant, but he doesn't know which day. So he goes there every day, to see if that's the day. He obviously eventually does meet her (and that's funny in itself, he has to have several tries to get it right, and he gets beat up in the process). At a certain point we learn Cris can go only 2 minutes into the future, except for his new girl, he can go further into the circumstances of her life, at least two hours into her life, but only as it concerns her. I found the clip I was looking for, he says: "Here's the thing, when you observe something, you change what you observe, and then that changes you, and then that changes what you observe, and that changes everything". I was close. For some reason it reminded me for a minute of Bruce Lee's s fight scene in the room of mirrors |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 19, 2024 0:34:11 GMT -5
Witnessing is your nature. Is it not? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 19, 2024 7:21:53 GMT -5
Witnessing is your nature. Is it not? What do you think practice is? Practice is witnessing. Yes. Chasing is the nature of the so-called SVP, the self-circuits. Witnessing is your true nature. But most people do not know this, do not care. Well done Gopal. This is most excellent posted by lolly one hour ago on the chasing thread, read it after posting above. If you start with deliberate intentional meditation, the ability to discern between the actuality of lived experience and the fabrications of the mind improves, and when you notice you are lost in mentality, you simply return attention to the actuality of your senses. Thus you know what is real (as you experience it) in contrast to what is false (as you imagine it). Don't become complacent with ideas about how and why as if you know answers. Just be conscious of what is, as it is, in the way it is experienced by you. You'll notice suddenly, 'hey I lost awareness of the real', and when that happens, you come back to reality automatically, but since almost all of your time is 'away', it's best to be more deliberate, intentional, persistent, and relentless. See how that works? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edit: I just now, 5:15 PM, 8 hours later, read this from the Teachers section, Niz: Q: What is meditation and what are its uses? M: As long as you are a beginner certain formalised meditations, or prayers may be good for you. But for a seeker for reality there is only one meditation -- the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts. To be free from thoughts is itself meditation. Q: How is it done? M: You begin by letting thoughts flow and watching them. The very observation slows down the mind till it stops altogether. Once the mind is quiet, keep it quiet. Don't get bored with peace, be in it, go deeper into it. M: Man becomes what he believes himself to be. Abandon all ideas about yourself and you will find yourself to be the pure witness, beyond all that can happen to the body or the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 19, 2024 22:17:13 GMT -5
Butt it's not the individual perspective that witnesses is it? A perspective can't do any thing right? It's incredibly difficult to follow your premise based upon things you say and things you don't. What is the difference between a real perceiver and an individual perspective that is witnessing? Then there is this thing about chasing and things that are not in your control as you have spoken about. Why are you speaking about the issues with chasing when you are telling the forum that the individual perspective can only witness. What is chasing? All that is? Individuated perspective is the witness. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 19, 2024 22:33:03 GMT -5
Witnessing is your nature. Is it not? What do you think practice is? Practice is witnessing. Yes. Chasing is the nature of the so-called SVP, the self-circuits. Witnessing is your true nature. But most people do not know this, do not care. Well done Gopal. This is most excellent posted by lolly one hour ago on the chasing thread, read it after posting above. If you start with deliberate intentional meditation, the ability to discern between the actuality of lived experience and the fabrications of the mind improves, and when you notice you are lost in mentality, you simply return attention to the actuality of your senses. Thus you know what is real (as you experience it) in contrast to what is false (as you imagine it). Don't become complacent with ideas about how and why as if you know answers. Just be conscious of what is, as it is, in the way it is experienced by you. You'll notice suddenly, 'hey I lost awareness of the real', and when that happens, you come back to reality automatically, but since almost all of your time is 'away', it's best to be more deliberate, intentional, persistent, and relentless. See how that works? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edit: I just now, 5:15 PM, 8 hours later, read this from the Teachers section, Niz: Q: What is meditation and what are its uses? M: As long as you are a beginner certain formalised meditations, or prayers may be good for you. But for a seeker for reality there is only one meditation -- the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts. To be free from thoughts is itself meditation. Q: How is it done? M: You begin by letting thoughts flow and watching them. The very observation slows down the mind till it stops altogether. Once the mind is quiet, keep it quiet. Don't get bored with peace, be in it, go deeper into it. M: Man becomes what he believes himself to be. Abandon all ideas about yourself and you will find yourself to be the pure witness, beyond all that can happen to the body or the mind. Practice is not witnessing, watching the on-going appearance is witnessing. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 20, 2024 0:40:03 GMT -5
It seems that the "witness" described by Niz and by gopal is Seth's "inner-self", while their "all-that-is" is the "whole-self", a gestalt of "personalities".
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 20, 2024 2:30:40 GMT -5
It seems that the "witness" described by Niz and by gopal is Seth's "inner-self", while their "all-that-is" is the "whole-self", a gestalt of "personalities". What Niz calls the "witness" perspective is impersonal and non-local, i.e. prior to the SVP. What Gopal calls the "witness" perspective is personal and local, i.e the SVP playing identity poker. Seth's "inner self" is neither. It's more like the A-H "Inner Being", i.e. the trans-personal perspective. And Seth also uses the the term All That Is (without hyphens). |
|
