|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 24, 2021 23:28:14 GMT
That's the 'in the story' view. A ray of sunshine that is not right here, right now, directly felt as shining on face or experienced as shining through my window, is an idea about a past event only. Past events only ever appear as a NOW idea/thought/memory. I don't disagree with that, but blades of grass don't spontaneously appear fully grown. A story is an abstraction, an interpretation, so you can interpret that sentence - or any sentence involving time that way, but only if you ignore the pointing of it. It helps if you don't take that sentence out of the context of the paragraph. Our disagreement on this topic is well established: I do not call time, an illusion.  Don't they though, if you look at what IS appearing before you in the present and what is appearing happens to be a blade of grass? The blade of grass as a tiny sprout, is but a present moment idea, as is a blade of grass at any stage of growth other than the one that's currently, immediately appearing, here, now. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Feb 24, 2021 23:35:53 GMT
Awareness of being aware is either effortless, or, it's not what the phrase is pointing to. Mind can only ever appear to interrupt it. Oh but, that would just be your future, your personal future, not the appearance of the future, in the impersonal sense. For me, an illusion is something that can be denied. Time has no existential value, any more than anything else that appears to you. But it seems to me silly to deny that time seems to pass, and if we need a definition, it can be defined very simply as the process of change. Can we deny the appearance of change?
I see it as there being 2 ways to look. Through the SVP or not. You can’t negate any of it as being real as much as you can admit there is only here and now. Yes. That's clarity. But, it's like the duck/bunny .. it is possible to see both images. At the same time. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Feb 24, 2021 23:37:37 GMT
Right, but just because you don't know about it does it mean that there's nothing there? Existence is a weighty word. The only thing that exists is the self that you are that must be realized. All else is an appearance that is reflective of "that", and has no existence in it's own independent right.
But, just because all form and time is relative, and thereby dependent in this way, doesn't mean it's not appearing to you. These appearances aren't limited to the field of your personal sensation and memory.
I hate that I spelt ‘hear not here’ haha am on a small screen. Same as my other reply. It all exists but it doesn’t. Seems like a paradox, don’t think you need to deny either just acknowledge the two points of viewing that exist. Sure, but the paradox might be just a way of describing where the mind dead-ends, or it might be a comfy/cozy unconscious rock in the middle of the lake. The appearance of the paradox might be an opportunity to resolve it, nonconceptually. Only you can say if it's this way, for you. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Feb 24, 2021 23:41:36 GMT
I don't disagree with that, but blades of grass don't spontaneously appear fully grown. A story is an abstraction, an interpretation, so you can interpret that sentence - or any sentence involving time that way, but only if you ignore the pointing of it. It helps if you don't take that sentence out of the context of the paragraph. Our disagreement on this topic is well established: I do not call time, an illusion. Don't they though, if you look at what IS appearing before you in the present and what is appearing happens to be a blade of grass? The blade of grass as a tiny sprout, is but a present moment idea, as is a blade of grass at any stage of growth other than the one that's currently, immediately appearing, here, now. We've been over this ground, multiple times, and not too long ago.
I'm not concerned with the details of the analytics of how appearances seem to appear. I'm simply recognizing that in this case, denying the process of growth would be the illusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 24, 2021 23:48:01 GMT
Don't they though, if you look at what IS appearing before you in the present and what is appearing happens to be a blade of grass? The blade of grass as a tiny sprout, is but a present moment idea, as is a blade of grass at any stage of growth other than the one that's currently, immediately appearing, here, now. We've been over this ground, multiple times, and not too long ago. I'm not concerned with the details of the analytics of how appearances seem to appear. I'm simply recognizing that in this case, denying the process of growth would be the illusion.
Depends whether we're talking Truth or relative/in the dream stuff. I always assume here, we're talking Truth...what is actually/can be known for certain....what is actually True. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2021 0:52:29 GMT
The future is inevitable? Not if I died today I guess. That’s the first time I’ve heard Time isn’t an illusion too. Yes change happens, in the moment, tomorrow is a word that helps us communicate. I always struggled with the pointer of awareness being aware, This isn’t of mind, yet you seem to need mind to work it out. Awareness of being aware is either effortless, or, it's not what the phrase is pointing to. Mind can only ever appear to interrupt it. Oh but, that would just be your future, your personal future, not the appearance of the future, in the impersonal sense. For me, an illusion is something that can be denied. Time has no existential value, any more than anything else that appears to you. But it seems to me silly to deny that time seems to pass, and if we need a definition, it can be defined very simply as the process of change. Can we deny the appearance of change?
Seeing that 'the passage of time' is only ever a presently arising idea arising alongside what is immediately presenting as appearance, is all in the interests of clarity...WIBIGO. While it may seem 'silly' to point out that passage of time and of one thing/circumstance/condition changing to another never appears directly/immediately, but rather, only arises as a present memory/idea of a past circumstance, in the interest of Truth, that is what's actually so. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2021 1:07:01 GMT
It’s the hear and now. I don’t even know what exists outside my room unless my mind tells me. Right, but just because you don't know about it does it mean that there's nothing there? I think you're mixing contexts. Her 'not knowing' is not relative, it's transcendent. Within the dream, as the story goes, sure,relatively speaking, there's a world assumed to be, beyond immediate, present perception. But, if we're talking Truth...what IS actually known for certain, what actually is beyond refute, the very suggestion that the not knowing of something there, beyond immediate perception of an appearance, does not mean that nothing is there, is misconceived. There's a pre-supposition there of the possibility of 'something' suspected to be, beyond the immediate perception of 'something.' Truth leaves no room for such theorizing. That which is known....can be known....is obvious. Speculation, assumption don't fit that bill. Appearances, whether in the form of an idea/thought, sense, idea, feeling, circumstance, object...can only be said to be appearing, if they arise presently...immediately. There is no such thing as a 'past appearance' that is not a presently arising idea/memory. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2021 1:08:09 GMT
Awareness of being aware is either effortless, or, it's not what the phrase is pointing to. Mind can only ever appear to interrupt it. Oh but, that would just be your future, your personal future, not the appearance of the future, in the impersonal sense. For me, an illusion is something that can be denied. Time has no existential value, any more than anything else that appears to you. But it seems to me silly to deny that time seems to pass, and if we need a definition, it can be defined very simply as the process of change. Can we deny the appearance of change?
I see it as there being 2 ways to look. Through the SVP or not. You can’t negate any of it as being real as much as you can admit there is only here and now. Bingo! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2021 1:17:05 GMT
Right, but just because you don't know about it does it mean that there's nothing there? Existence is a weighty word. The only thing that exists is the self that you are that must be realized. All else is an appearance that is reflective of "that", and has no existence in it's own independent right. But, just because all form and time is relative, and thereby dependent in this way, doesn't mean it's not appearing to you. These appearances aren't limited to the field of your personal sensation and memory.
I hate that I spelt ‘hear not here’ haha am on a small screen. Same as my other reply. It all exists but it doesn’t. Seems like a paradox, don’t think you need to deny either just acknowledge the two points of viewing that exist. Yes, that's it! Relatively speaking, I'm not going to argue that there is no knowledge of a home beyond the door of my bedroom. Immediately, presently arising Memories/ideas about a house beyond present appearance of this bedroom make for that 'relative knowledge.' But if we're talking Truth, what 'actually is so,' all that is absolutely known for certain is what presently appears. In terms of a home beyond the presently appearing bedroom, I know an idea of a house beyond, is arising, but not an appearance of a house per se. The relative view and the absolute view coincide together without any problem so long as the absolute view is seem to trump (but also encompass) the relative. That said, there are some relative ideas that do get seen through in realization of the absolute. Those places where mind is 'assuming/erroneously concluding/surmising/imagining something that never really makes an appearance' get seen for what they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 25, 2021 1:18:27 GMT
I see it as there being 2 ways to look. Through the SVP or not. You can’t negate any of it as being real as much as you can admit there is only here and now. Yes. That's clarity. But, it's like the duck/bunny .. it is possible to see both images. At the same time. Yes, both at same time, but still, with the absolute 'trumping' the relative. |
|
