Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 16:07:21 GMT
You don't have to wait for perception to return to know it is absent. Well regardless of whether I agree with that or not, I would never say that to gopal, because any implication of a knowing will very understandably be taken by him to mean that perceiving is fundamental. I don't understand why gopal would conclude that because you would be saying that knowing is more fundamental than perception. The knowing of presence or absence of perception is prior to the perception itself, therefore more fundamental. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 9, 2017 16:13:15 GMT
Well regardless of whether I agree with that or not, I would never say that to gopal, because any implication of a knowing will very understandably be taken by him to mean that perceiving is fundamental. I don't understand why gopal would conclude that because you would be saying that knowing is more fundamental than perception. The knowing of presence or absence of perception is prior to the perception itself, therefore more fundamental. I reckon I've got a better chance of finding a unicorn hiding under the bed than I have of persuading gopal that knowing and perceiving are different. Maybe you have a better shot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 16:24:00 GMT
I don't understand why gopal would conclude that because you would be saying that knowing is more fundamental than perception. The knowing of presence or absence of perception is prior to the perception itself, therefore more fundamental. I reckon I've got a better chance of finding a unicorn hiding under the bed than I have of persuading gopal that knowing and perceiving are different. Maybe you have a better shot. He has said that perception and awareness mean the same thing for him. That's the problem. Still, if you are the Ruler, who cares?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 17:16:18 GMT
Yes, there is a background thought would continue to inform you that you are witnessing in this case! It's not a thought. The witness just means awareness knowing itself. That's not a thought. A thought would be witnessed. Acting knowing is perceiving, you are not understanding the crucial point here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 17:17:20 GMT
I know when I suffer! It's a kind of internal pain I want to escape no matter whether I am watching a real event or watching in a movie. Movement of appearance has the power to pull me in. Do you really thinks that's suffering. Have you seen people screaming on a scary rollercoaster ride and they are enjoying every second of it!That's clearly not suffering. I am very about suffering. Suffering is a kind of inner pain which we desperately willing to come out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 17:18:53 GMT
Then you know you are the witness but you are not in witnessing mode. You are creating and perceiving, you would create the controlling when you believe yourself to be an actor. you would create differently when you identify yourself to be a witness. This is confusing because the controlling thought can arise without being in bondage to it and hence not suffer. This is a big misunderstanding in this discussion and it comes up again and again! Controlling thought is against the witnessing mode! If it arises inner level of knowing hasn't happened yet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 17:19:49 GMT
Yes, 'awareness' is a doing for you, for me, it is a beingness. We disagree, but I think I can still ask you about the suffering. Surely awareness is both beingness and doing, because movement of mind and perceiving are carried by awareness. What awareness is doing when it's perceiving? Taking rest? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 17:20:49 GMT
how do you know you are left with no perception? The you that knows absence of perception is awareness. If you know, then you are still in perceiving Job. Perceiving doesn't happen by looking at something, it's projected that way but in truth it's a knowing that's happening in awareness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 17:21:59 GMT
Because as it returns it becomes clear that it was gone. You don't have to wait for perception to return to know it is absent. He is identifying horse as donkey, you are identifying horse as buffalo but unfortunately you both are fighting for your own illusion. Only Gopal knows Horse as horse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 17:23:36 GMT
Well regardless of whether I agree with that or not, I would never say that to gopal, because any implication of a knowing will very understandably be taken by him to mean that perceiving is fundamental. I don't understand why gopal would conclude that because you would be saying that knowing is more fundamental than perception. The knowing of presence or absence of perception is prior to the perception itself, therefore more fundamental. That is knowing itself! Knowing is perceiving. |
|
