|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 7, 2021 17:25:09 GMT
I can derive the conclusion from what I know. I know myself to be a perceiver of ongoing story. You too and everybody else in the world. In the beginning as soon as you come to the world, you start to interact the world as if something is outside of ourselves but carefully looking at our perception says that everything is happening in our consciousness. If Consciousness is not receiving the perception from outside, then it's creating while it's perceiving. There is no beyond consciousness, because everything is happening to this "YOU", so YOU is the base. The question whether this YOU receives the perception or creates the perception while it perceives. In all existential truth - which makes zero sense, so it can't be explained and will contradict all theory - there is no inner, nor any outer. Everything is happening to me, Is that not clear? Every single perception is moving in my attention. So we know there is no outer, when there is no outer, it's obvious that there is no inner too. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 7, 2021 17:25:51 GMT
In all existential truth - which makes zero sense, so it can't be explained and will contradict all theory - there is no inner, nor any outer.yes that's the crux of the matter That's not an intelligent conclusion either. When we know, everything is happening in our focus, there is no outer, when there is no outer, there is no inner too. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 7, 2021 17:27:33 GMT
I can derive the conclusion from what I know. I know myself to be a perceiver of ongoing story. You too and everybody else in the world. In the beginning as soon as you come to the world, you start to interact the world as if something is outside of ourselves but carefully looking at our perception says that everything is happening in our consciousness. If Consciousness is not receiving the perception from outside, then it's creating while it's perceiving. There is no beyond consciousness, because everything is happening to this "YOU", so YOU is the base. The question whether this YOU receives the perception or creates the perception while it perceives. I don't think you are wrong in what you are saying there, but the concept of 'Reality' doesn't care about that, it doesn't even care about the 'YOU' that is the base. I love the film Dead Poets Society....have you seen it? There's a bit where one of the characters, who is a teacher, is explaining to his class the value of poetry. He explains that engineering and law and science, are all noble pursuits and are useful, but poetry is about what makes us human, it's about love and passion and connection. It sort of reminds me of what you said here. You gave me a valid engineering answer, but in order to grasp what is meant by 'Reality', you have to step away from engineering and into poetry. So you have stepped away and seen something which is beyond the reality? I don't see anything beyond this dream. I am dreaming, there is nothing exist but awareness. And this awareness can't be separated from the perception, ongoing perception is carrying this awareness within itself. |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Feb 7, 2021 18:42:00 GMT
That alone doesn't create the division. The division - which is only apparent, and is not actual - is created by an automatic subconscious process of identifying with the witness. Oh you are saying identifying myself to be a witness is problem? Or creating the division? What's this division and how is it causing any problem? What have you identified with? It's not a problem so much as it is the default human condition, and it's not anything you can think or otherwise work yourself out of. It takes grace.
What is possible is an absence of this pattern, and in that absence, there really is no defined sense of identity. This might sound as if it doesn't make sense, and that's because, it doesn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Feb 7, 2021 18:49:54 GMT
In all existential truth - which makes zero sense, so it can't be explained and will contradict all theory - there is no inner, nor any outer. Everything is happening to me, Is that not clear? Every single perception is moving in my attention. So we know there is no outer, when there is no outer, it's obvious that there is no inner too. okey dokey |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 7, 2021 21:49:24 GMT
You continually are imagining into the equation, an entity that does stuff...that looks....that perceives...that receives. Believe it or not, in actuality, the world is appearing to no one/no-thing at all. It's all just happening. The 'you' you imagine to be central and causal to the experience of 'seeing/looking at the world,' is nothing more than that; imaginary. And the really mind-blowing thing is that no-one/no-thing is imagining it...again, it's all just a dream that's appearing...empty, all of it.
There is no "my/your awareness"...awareness does not 'belong' to some-one or something. All some-one's/some-things, arise within/to awareness.
Tell me who perceives the moving perception? "Moving perception" is already a step too far into mind.
& I think where you in particular are concerned, even the very term "perception" should perhaps be removed, as you continually read a process and a perceiver into it. All these terms involve 'pointing' to the non-conceptual.
There is no 'who' that perceives, let alone a 'who' that perceives moving perception. You've got a log-cabin of entities piled up there, where really, there is not even one.
Awareness aware-ing may be a better term/pointer to talk about this with you to try to circumvent all that conceptualization.
The problem is, you continue to conceptualize that which cannot be conceptualized. The line of dialogue between us here really does so perfectly exemplify the limitation of language in trying to point to Truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 7, 2021 21:50:34 GMT
You are believing yourself to be an entity (which you call awareness) that is watching the movie from beyond the movie. You are conflating a vantage point/place of seeing with a something that is looking. Even calling it a 'vantage point' goes too far actually as seekers will grasp onto that, taking it as 'something.'
"The freedom you look for, is where you look from" Jac O Keefe
A stellar quote imo, but most seekers will grasp onto the 'you' and the 'where' as actual things.
Bottom line, you're not going to ever "figure out" the Truth, using mind/logic to do it. And that's what I see you doing here.
I don't look for freedom, I am saying you are not free yet.And you know that for fact, simply because I shared with you that I am a tad hesitant to completely abandon the old forum for this one? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 7, 2021 21:53:15 GMT
Look deeper. Does what you are denoting as "witnessing" actually have a "witness" behind it? If so, what IS this witness...describe it. Truth is, there is no-thing that is aware, rather, there is just awareness itself. This circles back to the 'not knowing' argument. Those who say rocks, socks and appearing people are known for certain to BE aware, have mistaken awareness to be a conceptual something. They are saying a sock IS aware....they have ascribed a sock the quality of 'being aware.'
In reality, it's the other way around. A sock; 'awareness' is fundamental to it. No-one/no-thing IS aware. The very idea of people 'being aware' is a misconception from the get-go. Awareness is fundamental, not the property/quality of something that appears.
Find out who is looking at the perception. That someone whom you THINK you know for certain is 'looking at the perception,' is imagined only. There is no such someone....no something at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 7, 2021 21:55:39 GMT
That word is key. At full circle, SR, there is no longer a fixed "local" for what you are/Self. There is just THIS, which is all inclusive of the abiding ground and all that arises/appears within it. Overthinking is not good to the body. Huh? I'm not sure what this has to do with this conversation...? 
That absence of a fixed local, is truly just an absence. No thinking at all required to be free of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 8, 2021 12:48:09 GMT
Oh you are saying identifying myself to be a witness is problem? Or creating the division? What's this division and how is it causing any problem? What have you identified with? It's not a problem so much as it is the default human condition, and it's not anything you can think or otherwise work yourself out of. It takes grace.
What is possible is an absence of this pattern, and in that absence, there really is no defined sense of identity. This might sound as if it doesn't make sense, and that's because, it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 8, 2021 12:49:10 GMT
Tell me who perceives the moving perception? "Moving perception" is already a step too far into mind.
& I think where you in particular are concerned, even the very term "perception" should perhaps be removed, as you continually read a process and a perceiver into it. All these terms involve 'pointing' to the non-conceptual.
There is no 'who' that perceives, let alone a 'who' that perceives moving perception. You've got a log-cabin of entities piled up there, where really, there is not even one.
Awareness aware-ing may be a better term/pointer to talk about this with you to try to circumvent all that conceptualization.
The problem is, you continue to conceptualize that which cannot be conceptualized. The line of dialogue between us here really does so perfectly exemplify the limitation of language in trying to point to Truth.
Tell me who perceives the moving perception? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 8, 2021 12:50:23 GMT
I don't look for freedom, I am saying you are not free yet.And you know that for fact, simply because I shared with you that I am a tad hesitant to completely abandon the old forum for this one? I am seeing your argument with rowan and saying that you are pretty sensitivity and so I am saying you are not free yet. That's why I say you are not having any direct seeing. You are simply concluding what's best and tries to use that solution to overcome your life issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 8, 2021 12:51:02 GMT
Find out who is looking at the perception. That someone whom you THINK you know for certain is 'looking at the perception,' is imagined only. There is no such someone....no something at all.
Aren't you watching your life? Who is this you? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 8, 2021 12:51:50 GMT
Overthinking is not good to the body. Huh? I'm not sure what this has to do with this conversation...?
That absence of a fixed local, is truly just an absence. No thinking at all required to be free of it. You are doing the overthinking and I am pointing. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 8, 2021 17:19:32 GMT
"Moving perception" is already a step too far into mind.
& I think where you in particular are concerned, even the very term "perception" should perhaps be removed, as you continually read a process and a perceiver into it. All these terms involve 'pointing' to the non-conceptual.
There is no 'who' that perceives, let alone a 'who' that perceives moving perception. You've got a log-cabin of entities piled up there, where really, there is not even one.
Awareness aware-ing may be a better term/pointer to talk about this with you to try to circumvent all that conceptualization.
The problem is, you continue to conceptualize that which cannot be conceptualized. The line of dialogue between us here really does so perfectly exemplify the limitation of language in trying to point to Truth.
Tell me who perceives the moving perception? It was there in my above post;
Figgles: "There is no 'who' that perceives, let alone a 'who' that perceives moving perception. You've got a log-cabin of entities piled up there, where really, there is not even one. "
Fwiw, when that 'who' that is mistaken to be perceiving is seen through, so too is the idea of 'moving perception.'
|
|
