Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 17:14:02 GMT
Yes, I beleive I am. Cloud memory.  If you don't know you don't know. I can't see how you could know, as what you are suggesting doesn't make sense. Can you say more about these fundamental points of perception. I've never heard you talk before of fundamental objects so this should be interesting.... are they eternal?Doesn't it just make more sense that points of perception are boundaried by individualization? And that they are not fundamental?If you are confused on the matter, due to Phil not making sense, do you think he will be able to help you with that. Obviously if you were clear on the matter you wouldn't even approach him at all, isn't it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 24, 2017 19:32:37 GMT
So you have verified for yourself that the teachers theory about the content of Consciousness IS Consciousness is true? How is that not being dependant on the teacher? Hehe I saw that quite clearly, (although I may have used different words if I had had to share it then) long before any spiritual teachers were ever encountered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 22:16:50 GMT
So you have verified for yourself that the teachers theory about the content of Consciousness IS Consciousness is true? How is that not being dependant on the teacher? Hehe I saw that quite clearly, (although I may have used different words if I had had to share it then) long before any spiritual teachers were ever encountered. You saw what clearly? The theory?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 24, 2017 22:19:43 GMT
If you see it for yourself than you don't need gratification I saw that quite clearly, (although I may have used different words if I had had to share it then) long before any spiritual teachers were ever encountered. You saw what clearly? The theory? No theory....I directly saw that the content of Consciousness IS Consciousness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 22:56:26 GMT
If you see it for yourself than you don't need gratification You saw what clearly? The theory? No theory....I directly saw that the content of Consciousness IS Consciousness. How do we approach that statement to find out if 'directly seeing' involves fact or self deception? |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 24, 2017 23:00:04 GMT
I thought I was arguing against fundamental objects, like vehicles. A point of perception and an individualization are the same. A vehicle is just an expression of Consciousness, an illusionary form. I'm not saying these vehicles exist in an ultimate reality of spacetime...spacetime is also an expression. That's all I've been trying to say. So what are we arguing about?  Yes, I think ultimately there is no objective universe at all. So you think there's an ultimate reality, just not an 'ultimate' reality?? It sounds like you're the one who doesn't want to be wrong. Not in my illusory universe.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 24, 2017 23:11:42 GMT
No theory....I directly saw that the content of Consciousness IS Consciousness. How do we approach that statement to find out if 'directly seeing' involves fact or self deception? All depends who the 'we' is, and if any of 'em are actually truly interested in finding out or not, or if they're just playing games. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 24, 2017 23:21:22 GMT
It doesn't. You're the one having the experience of surety. I know nothing.
How would you describe an experience that you accept in the moment without question? You recently said that you experience animated perceivers. Is wondering and doubting and questioning part of that experience? Are you consciously thinking...'ah, but no experience is objective' in every moment? Or do you just mostly accept the world as it presents itself? Is 'acceptance' a better word? It's fascinating how much one can talk about what isn't known and what isn't so. That constitutes most of what I talk about. It isn't known that appearances are perceivers, and it isn't so that a vehicle is required for perception. I'm not the one who knows something, I've just seen through the illusion of knowing. The remainder of what I talk about is either challenging the perception or flawful logic of others, or discussing something in a contextually limited way using concepts that I know aren't ultimately true and will fail when their boundaries are pushed. Such questions as, 'how is a point of perception formed?' has no answer because the question is misconceived, formulated on the basis of concepts that aren't ultimately valid. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 24, 2017 23:32:19 GMT
Wow! Let me know when you're interested in a discussion. 
Here are the different options I see: First, the very idea of 'points of perception' is misconceived, and there are just appearances appearing in Impersonal Consciousness. So although it seems that there are 'points of perception', there aren't. Similarly, if perception = creation, then speaking of 'points of perception' also seems misconceived. Second, 'points of perception' are part of the physical individualized universe (in which case they shouldn't really be spoken of as 'appearances'). Here we might say a human being is/has a point of perception, but a chair does not. Third option, 'points of perception' are fundamental and eternal (as gopal suggests) and appearances appear to these points. I've never denied that there is an illusory 'reality'. You mean like denying that I'm typing on a keyboard and reading from a monitor? That would be crazy, Andy. Don't talk crazy. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 24, 2017 23:38:30 GMT
How does your assuming that create the experience of surety? You consciously assume it? But yes, 'assumed' knowledge is still knowledge. All knowledge contains assumption. ..hehe The real question is, 'is it possible to look at something without creating an image of it and assuming that it is this or not that'?  I pick up a paper clip when I want to attach pieces of paper together. What would make me question it's ability to perceive? That's only happening in this absurd, poopy pants discussion. |
|
