|
Post by Gopal on Mar 2, 2021 7:42:59 GMT
Oh great! Since you said you couldn't understand what laffy was writing I thought you are also like me having some other language as your native language. Haha no.. he’s just really clever and this topic is really deep and outside of the mind.. hmm okay.
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Mar 2, 2021 7:44:38 GMT
It’s what Figgles, Enigma, Muttley etc are pointing to. In simple terms, the mind creates the story around what appears in the here and NOW. Time, Control, Cause and effect are all illusions. Am in Australia, I speak English (although not as well as some of the more intellectual folk on this forum). 😊 They three are saying mind is creating the theory around the happenings. But I am saying that mind is creating the entire story of what you are seeing and what you are thinking. We are creating the total unfolding, but we tend to bend the line of experience with our beliefs. I started to listen to this last night but only first few minutes
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 2, 2021 20:29:32 GMT
She was very clearly expressing emptiness. I grasped what she was saying just fine. You're projecting our disagreements onto my dialog with her. Agreed. But that still doesn't mean I was saying that YOU 'fail to grasp emptiness.' Seemed to me you were saying something more there though, than just that Esponja was clearly expressing emptiness. I actually didn't see you even mention that specific term til now. Yes, obviously I was saying something more. Emptiness isn't the last word, but I'll use it when it's the word that fits.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 2, 2021 20:31:54 GMT
Shhhhhh. Don' worry 'bout it 'hun. (** snicker **)
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 2, 2021 20:39:37 GMT
Yes, & then you said this: "but just because you don't know about it does it mean that there's nothing there?" That's neither a contradiction of the 'not knowing' she was indicating, nor is it an affirmation of it. The question you've asked there, is actually 'misconceived." Mind has no business in trying to go beyond the clear seeing that ' there is no knowing beyond immediate appearance.' But, you missed the point that I affirmed what she was saying. Why won't you admit that? I agree, and agreed with the statement. Now you've morphed what she wrote, and we disagree on the nature of it. It's a powerful perspective. I'd even say that it was useful. But, do you really think that everyone and anyone who makes it is relating something non-relative?
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 2, 2021 20:41:52 GMT
Appearences appear in ways that manifest as both subjective, and objective. E' coined a term in the past, "radical subjectivity". But you see, it doesn't mean "subjective" in the sense of appearances appearing, it's more a pointer to how there is no "God" in the way that you're thinking of "creation", and the only awareness here, is you.
None of these appearances will help you find reality, but ideas about appearances can help obscure reality. The only reality, is you. Not the personal you, not what you might imagine as an impersonal "you", either. Just what you're aware of with one, simple, quiet breath. That's all. Only awareness exist, that's me. Meaning of personal me or impersonal me looses it's grip for me because I am the ultimate witness to whom appearance are floating one after another. Yes, but, as we discussed the other day, even in this notion of witnessing, there is a divide.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 2, 2021 20:52:58 GMT
If I am perceiving the movement of appearance, then it must be either I am creating while I am perceiving(from inside) or I must be receiving the appearance from outside. But as for as I am concerned, a careful look tells me that I am not receiving the perception because perception is inseparable from the perceiver, perceiver can't even perceive nothing in my view, perceiver is within the perceiving act. Perceiving holds the perceiver and perception together. But if you include the perception and the perceiver this way then you can say EITHER: there is no inside, and no outside, OR, you can say that there is both inside, and outside.
This dichotomy you state here is ultimately false. It's a logical consistency, but logic cannot reach what we point to as not-two. The dichotomy only makes sense in relative terms, but the totality of perceiver and perception isn't relative. In relative terms, you cannot deny both the perceiver and the perceived, you have to include them both. Another way of saying this is that appearances appear in terms that are both subjective, and objective. Your personal perception does not create the pull of the Earth on your feet or the rays of the Sun on your skin. In relative terms, your feeling of these is subjective, but the apparent source of the cause of these feelings is objective.
In absolute terms, there is no dichotomy, no perceiver, no perceived. Even to say that there is perception is a concession to the relative, as perception, change, and movement, are always ephemeral, always relative. But, what you are is the source of the perception, which is neither subjective, nor objective, but rather, what we can point to with the notion, of the absolute, which is not an appearance, and so, never appears.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 2, 2021 21:00:21 GMT
Can please be more specific? What's appearing that way?
By the way which country are you from? What's your native language?
It’s what Figgles, Enigma, Muttley etc are pointing to. In simple terms, the mind creates the story around what appears in the here and NOW. Time, Control, Cause and effect are all illusions. Am in Australia, I speak English (although not as well as some of the more intellectual folk on this forum). 😊 I don't go so far as to say that time, cause and effect are illusion, rather, they're just patterns in the way that appearances appear. Now, this isn't to say there aren't potential altered states of consciousness which put those patterns into perspective. And time, cause and effect are not what most people think they are, as those thoughts are grounded in the existential illusions of separation and limitation.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 2, 2021 21:02:01 GMT
It’s what Figgles, Enigma, Muttley etc are pointing to. In simple terms, the mind creates the story around what appears in the here and NOW. Time, Control, Cause and effect are all illusions. Am in Australia, I speak English (although not as well as some of the more intellectual folk on this forum).😊 Oh great! Since you said you couldn't understand what laffy was writing I thought you are also like me having some other language as your native language. When red if tree, but niggleflught emporator and nugget.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 2, 2021 21:03:06 GMT
Oh great! Since you said you couldn't understand what laffy was writing I thought you are also like me having some other language as your native language. Haha no.. he’s just really clever and this topic is really deep and outside of the mind.. yes my silly intellect keeps intruding where it doesn't belong in forming the shapes of the sentences.
|
|