Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Jun 2, 2018 19:36:14 GMT
Probably worth a thread in it's own right (excuse the pun) .
So we have a tree that is appearing in or of the mind or in or of consciousness . Take your pick of word usage .
There is only what you are so it matters not whether we relate to a tree or a human form experience .
So why does a tree or a human form experience have to be perceived as out there and separate from what you are ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 20:02:02 GMT
Probably worth a thread in it's own right (excuse the pun) . So we have a tree that is appearing in or of the mind or in or of consciousness . Take your pick of word usage . There is only what you are so it matters not whether we relate to a tree or a human from experience . So why does a tree or a human form experience have to be perceived as out there and separate from what you are .. It's not perceived that way if your observe it carefully, it's here in your perception. Please observe it carefully.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 7, 2018 3:29:30 GMT
Probably worth a thread in it's own right (excuse the pun) . So we have a tree that is appearing in or of the mind or in or of consciousness . Take your pick of word usage . There is only what you are so it matters not whether we relate to a tree or a human form experience . So why does a tree or a human form experience have to be perceived as out there and separate from what you are .. It doesn't, though the illusion that makes it appear so is quite compelling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 4:40:59 GMT
Probably worth a thread in it's own right (excuse the pun) . So we have a tree that is appearing in or of the mind or in or of consciousness . Take your pick of word usage . There is only what you are so it matters not whether we relate to a tree or a human form experience . So why does a tree or a human form experience have to be perceived as out there and separate from what you are .. It doesn't, though the illusion that makes it appear so is quite compelling. Actually dream should trigger the suspect about the world which appears. It needs to tell us the need not to be the way it appears.
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Jun 7, 2018 8:36:54 GMT
Probably worth a thread in it's own right (excuse the pun) . So we have a tree that is appearing in or of the mind or in or of consciousness . Take your pick of word usage . There is only what you are so it matters not whether we relate to a tree or a human form experience . So why does a tree or a human form experience have to be perceived as out there and separate from what you are .. It doesn't, though the illusion that makes it appear so is quite compelling. So why are you saying to me that I see a separate tree out there?
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 8, 2018 6:16:30 GMT
It doesn't, though the illusion that makes it appear so is quite compelling. Actually dream should trigger the suspect about the world which appears. It needs to tell us the need not to be the way it appears. It should at least raise the question in peep's minds, but I find that for some, the idea of waking experience not being what it appears to be is too threatening to consider. It is, however, at the heart of seeing through illusions, and really, that's the name of the spiritual game.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 8, 2018 6:21:35 GMT
It doesn't, though the illusion that makes it appear so is quite compelling. So why are you saying to me that I see a separate tree out there? I'm saying that you believe in separation without admitting, or consciously realizing, that you do. How can a tree be real and remain in the mind when it's not being perceived? In what way is it still in your mind?
|
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Jun 8, 2018 7:06:58 GMT
So why are you saying to me that I see a separate tree out there? I'm saying that you believe in separation without admitting, or consciously realizing, that you do. How can a tree be real and remain in the mind when it's not being perceived? In what way is it still in your mind? Well I could equally say that you believe in separation and the objective world without admitting it despite what you say to the contrary . My actual thoughts / understanding actually back up what I am saying . It's not as if I say that the bus is a dream bus and step aside when it comes heading towards me . If you like we can carry on with the pretence and everything you and I both say we can believe the opposite . In regards to the tree question, you have the most unusual idea of reality and how things appear and until you let the fantasy go of how things appear you are not going to understand the blinkin obvious . The tree is what you are, it doesn't exist through the perception of another . I have no idea how you have ever brought into the idea that things disappear or don't exist in their own right . There has been no realization to that effect, I can only assume you read a book about it and adopted it as being truthy . Every individual aspect of source that is in experience of the mind does not require the perceived thought of another in order to exist . Things come and go, bodies die out, tree's die out, stars burn out, it's part of the life and death cycle of such forms within experience . Their life cycle within experience of the mind does not depend on anyone perceiving them . You have already agreed that if the tree self verifies in it's own way then it doesn't disappear so you need to stop these mixed signals . One minute you seem to be understanding the nature of appearances and say that's bloody obvious that things don't disappear cos peeps are not perceiving them, then you ask a dumb question like how can a tree be real and remain in the mind when it's not being perceived? The tree in question when not perceived is not perceived, it's that straightforward . Why would the tree that can self verify disappear each time when not perceived . Your theory on this makes no sense .. why would stuff disappear? You have this theory of creation=perception and you have turned it into a magical act that makes no sense . Like said you need to understand the nature of appearance in reflection of yourself . Because you don't know and are confused about things like this and you think dream characters are pooping out chicken you really have a vivid imagination which is good, butt your seriously lacking in common sense and sound understanding .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 10:18:40 GMT
Actually dream should trigger the suspect about the world which appears. It needs to tell us the need not to be the way it appears. It should at least raise the question in peep's minds, but I find that for some, the idea of waking experience not being what it appears to be is too threatening to consider. It is, however, at the heart of seeing through illusions, and really, that's the name of the spiritual game. I started observing how outer world movement changes according to my inner feeling even before I heard of everything appears in perception. But later one fine day when I look at my nightly dream, I have had that question and then everything else became very clear.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jun 22, 2018 3:32:19 GMT
I'm saying that you believe in separation without admitting, or consciously realizing, that you do. How can a tree be real and remain in the mind when it's not being perceived? In what way is it still in your mind? Well I could equally say that you believe in separation and the objective world without admitting it despite what you say to the contrary .My actual thoughts / understanding actually back up what I am saying . It's not as if I say that the bus is a dream bus and step aside when it comes heading towards me . If you like we can carry on with the pretence and everything you and I both say we can believe the opposite . In regards to the tree question, you have the most unusual idea of reality and how things appear and until you let the fantasy go of how things appear you are not going to understand the blinkin obvious . The tree is what you are, it doesn't exist through the perception of another . I have no idea how you have ever brought into the idea that things disappear or don't exist in their own right . There has been no realization to that effect, I can only assume you read a book about it and adopted it as being truthy . Every individual aspect of source that is in experience of the mind does not require the perceived thought of another in order to exist . Things come and go, bodies die out, tree's die out, stars burn out, it's part of the life and death cycle of such forms within experience . Their life cycle within experience of the mind does not depend on anyone perceiving them . You have already agreed that if the tree self verifies in it's own way then it doesn't disappear so you need to stop these mixed signals . One minute you seem to be understanding the nature of appearances and say that's bloody obvious that things don't disappear cos peeps are not perceiving them, then you ask a dumb question like how can a tree be real and remain in the mind when it's not being perceived? The tree in question when not perceived is not perceived, it's that straightforward . Why would the tree that can self verify disappear each time when not perceived . Your theory on this makes no sense .. why would stuff disappear? You have this theory of creation=perception and you have turned it into a magical act that makes no sense . Like said you need to understand the nature of appearance in reflection of yourself . Because you don't know and are confused about things like this and you think dream characters are pooping out chicken you really have a vivid imagination which is good, butt your seriously lacking in common sense and sound understanding . Well, except what I say has some basis in fact and what would 'equally' say has none.
|
|