Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 0:57:24 GMT
That's nonsense, you can be aware of much more.  Much more than what..? Than what you are perceiving...  |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2017 0:58:17 GMT
Than what you are perceiving... Yep okay |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 1:04:51 GMT
Okay, so what I mean is that I experience trees, and people, and sunshine etc.....normal stuff....none of which are either full or empty in the experience of them. So when those guys experience a 'full appearance' or an 'empty appearance', I'm wondering what the characteristics of that experience are. When the mind experiences trees and people and sunshine, or 'what is', the mind is still... When the mind experiences a 'full appearance' or an 'empty appearance' or 'what is not', the mind is moving... |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 2:46:21 GMT
How should I know? Ask one of your spirit body buddies. I'm just saying the appearance is not the cause of other appearances. The spirit body gang will agree that points of perception require some kind of vehicle, even if this vehicle isn't flesh and bone. I'm not saying an appearance causes an appearance, I'm saying perspective coincides with bodies. You've already expanded the idea of vehicles to include our alleged agreeable non-physical spirit gang. I'm confident that you would expand it to include any and all perception imaginable, so there's no point to this discussion. Vehicles are not required for perception. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 3:07:39 GMT
Okay, so what I mean is that I experience trees, and people, and sunshine etc.....normal stuff....none of which are either full or empty in the experience of them. So when those guys experience a 'full appearance' or an 'empty appearance', I'm wondering what the characteristics of that experience are. I don't know. It was Gopal's misuse of terms, applying 'empty appearances' to our experience of appearances. I assume it means 'not real' or 'image' sumthin. In any case, as I've been saying, I don't experience that either. I experience animated perceivers. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2017 8:59:44 GMT
Okay, so what I mean is that I experience trees, and people, and sunshine etc.....normal stuff....none of which are either full or empty in the experience of them. So when those guys experience a 'full appearance' or an 'empty appearance', I'm wondering what the characteristics of that experience are. When the mind experiences trees and people and sunshine, or 'what is', the mind is still... When the mind experiences a 'full appearance' or an 'empty appearance' or 'what is not', the mind is moving... It is an unusual way to express it, but I know what you mean. Experiencing either full or empty appearances, requires us to experience the mental construct of 'appearance'. When in reality, what is experienced is 'mountain', or 'tree'...or whatever. 'Appearance' is just a word to talk about absence of objective reality, we don't actually experience 'an appearance' let alone a full or empty one. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2017 9:01:12 GMT
The spirit body gang will agree that points of perception require some kind of vehicle, even if this vehicle isn't flesh and bone. I'm not saying an appearance causes an appearance, I'm saying perspective coincides with bodies. You've already expanded the idea of vehicles to include our alleged agreeable non-physical spirit gang. I'm confident that you would expand it to include any and all perception imaginable, so there's no point to this discussion. Vehicles are not required for perception. Check what I said originally, and even in the messages after, and you will see I haven't expanded the definition. How can there be finite perception without finite individuality? |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2017 9:12:25 GMT
Okay, so what I mean is that I experience trees, and people, and sunshine etc.....normal stuff....none of which are either full or empty in the experience of them. So when those guys experience a 'full appearance' or an 'empty appearance', I'm wondering what the characteristics of that experience are. I don't know. It was Gopal's misuse of terms, applying 'empty appearances' to our experience of appearances. I assume it means 'not real' or 'image' sumthin. In any case, as I've been saying, I don't experience that either. I experience animated perceivers. Okay. So would you say there is surety in that experience? When you perceive a mountain, there is surety that it has a backside. If you weren't sure you would probably be wondering if it was a set prop in a film. The unseen back side of the mountain is built into, and part of, your perception of the mountain. Similarly, when you perceive other people, animated perceiving is built into that perception. There is surety to it. Whereas when you perceive a chair, animated perceiving is not built into, or part of, that perception. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 13:21:16 GMT
You've already expanded the idea of vehicles to include our alleged agreeable non-physical spirit gang. I'm confident that you would expand it to include any and all perception imaginable, so there's no point to this discussion. Vehicles are not required for perception. Check what I said originally, and even in the messages after, and you will see I haven't expanded the definition. How can there be finite perception without finite individuality? I mean you've expanded it beyond the common idea of a physical apparatus. Finite perception, yes. An intermediary vehicle to provide sense perception, no. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 23, 2017 13:26:43 GMT
I don't know. It was Gopal's misuse of terms, applying 'empty appearances' to our experience of appearances. I assume it means 'not real' or 'image' sumthin. In any case, as I've been saying, I don't experience that either. I experience animated perceivers. Okay. So would you say there is surety in that experience? When you perceive a mountain, there is surety that it has a backside. If you weren't sure you would probably be wondering if it was a set prop in a film. The unseen back side of the mountain is built into, and part of, your perception of the mountain. Similarly, when you perceive other people, animated perceiving is built into that perception. There is surety to it. Whereas when you perceive a chair, animated perceiving is not built into, or part of, that perception. What you call 'built in' to perception, I call assumption. Mind fills in the blanks about what is not perceived. If it's not being directly perceived, it's not there, mostly because there is no 'there', which is also assumed. |
|
