|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:10:14 GMT
Intelligence is a pointer only. There is no 'thing' called intelligence that "does" the forming of thought/perception. You continue to invoke 'a process' of creation, where in actuality, there is no process. In your imagining of a process, you also invoke "a creator" who is behind that process. There is no creator, there is no creative process.
Will you believe If enigma says the same?
The problem is, you have not heeded the bolded.
Again, You are conceptualizing "Intelligence"....whereas E is using it as a pointer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:13:40 GMT
What appears....what is believed, does not have a someone/something behind it. You are positing the seeing and the beliefs of a someone, as creative catalysts to stuff that follows. Beliefs are correlated with appearing conditions, but not causal to them. It's only mind that tries to pin down causation in this way.
It's all just happening.
Beliefs...seeing....sensing....there is no 'some-thing' that is doing any of that. Time is an illusion...separation/causation too...there is no belief in this moment that actually 'causes' a manifestation in another moment. It's all one, singular, undivided movement.
Looking to the content of experience to try to figure out how/why you experience what you do, is misconceived.
It looks like you are living in the fantasy world.
You are the one who is perceiving, right? Who is this YOU?
Dude...why the need to make things personal like this...to jab? Art has been engaging me with full on ego for the past two days and has now retired his account in huff, yet AGAIN. It would be nice to have a convo that's fully centred on content only.
Ultimately, no, there is no 'me/someone' that is perceiving. The someone who seems to be perceiving is itself perceived. Ultimately, perception is absent a perceiver.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:17:31 GMT
Gopal, here is a good Spira quote that speaks to the issue of experiencer/experience; “In other words, in reality, there are not two things—one, the screen and two, the document or image. There is just the screen. Two things (or a multiplicity and diversity of things) only come into apparent existence when their true reality—the screen—is overlooked. Experience is like that. All we know is experience but there is no independent ‘we’ or ‘I’ that knows experience. There is just experience or experiencing. And experiencing is not inherently divided into one part that experiences and another part that is experienced.”Yes, perceiver is the attached part of moving perception. You missed this bit: "There is just experience or experiencing."
There is no actual 'experiencer' behind experiencing....there is no actual perceiver behind perceiving. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:22:14 GMT
will you believe if enigma says the same?
He's not speaking of "intelligence" there as though it is a thing that "does" the forming....as you seem to be. Even though he uses the term 'forms,' I've talked to E long enough to know he's not talking about a conceptual something nor a process.
I'm pretty sure, he'd agree with what I'm saying above.
Just because you both use the same word does not mean you are both using it in the same way....indicating the same thing.
E uses the term 'intelligence' as a pointer, whereas, it seems as though you have conceptualized it as a something that does stuff...that engages in a process.
Find out who is looking the ongoing perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:23:02 GMT
Will you believe If enigma says the same?
The problem is, you have not heeded the bolded.
Again, You are conceptualizing "Intelligence"....whereas E is using it as a pointer.
Find out who is looking! That looker is becoming from A to B, B to C, C to D. A is one perception, B is another perception and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:24:03 GMT
It looks like you are living in the fantasy world.
You are the one who is perceiving, right? Who is this YOU?
Dude...why the need to make things personal like this...to jab? Art has been engaging me with full on ego for the past two days and has now retired his account in huff, yet AGAIN. It would be nice to have a convo that's fully centred on content only.
Ultimately, no, there is no 'me/someone' that is perceiving. The someone who seems to be perceiving is itself perceived. Ultimately, perception is absent a perceiver.
Perceiver is within the perception. I took a big class to Enigma until he understand, now it's the turn for you! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:24:09 GMT
He's not speaking of "intelligence" there as though it is a thing that "does" the forming....as you seem to be. Even though he uses the term 'forms,' I've talked to E long enough to know he's not talking about a conceptual something nor a process.
I'm pretty sure, he'd agree with what I'm saying above.
Just because you both use the same word does not mean you are both using it in the same way....indicating the same thing.
E uses the term 'intelligence' as a pointer, whereas, it seems as though you have conceptualized it as a something that does stuff...that engages in a process.
Find out who is looking the ongoing perceptions. Realization/seeing through reveals the idea of a 'who/what' to be false. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:24:57 GMT
Yes, perceiver is the attached part of moving perception. You missed this bit: "There is just experience or experiencing."
There is no actual 'experiencer' behind experiencing....there is no actual perceiver behind perceiving. this is the new knowledge for you. But it is what I have been saying for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:26:37 GMT
The problem is, you have not heeded the bolded.
Again, You are conceptualizing "Intelligence"....whereas E is using it as a pointer.
Find out who is looking! That looker is becoming from A to B, B to C, C to D. A is one perception, B is another perception and so on. So the 'who' that is looking, that you say is not conceptual, changes, becomes something different?
If so, then that which you are calling the looker, is itself a perceivable. It's an appearance only.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:27:10 GMT
Find out who is looking the ongoing perceptions. Realization/seeing through reveals the idea of a 'who/what' to be false. Nonsense! There is a perceiver within the perception, but the thing is, the perceiver can't be separated from the perception. When Enigma argued with me, he continue to say that perceiver can look into the empty when there is no thought. But I proved him that such perceiver can't exist because perceiver and perception both are one and the same. There is a perceiver but this perceiver can't have independent existence without perception because perceiver is attached part of perception. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:27:57 GMT
Dude...why the need to make things personal like this...to jab? Art has been engaging me with full on ego for the past two days and has now retired his account in huff, yet AGAIN. It would be nice to have a convo that's fully centred on content only.
Ultimately, no, there is no 'me/someone' that is perceiving. The someone who seems to be perceiving is itself perceived. Ultimately, perception is absent a perceiver.
Perceiver is within the perception. I took a big class to Enigma until he understand, now it's the turn for you! If you are saying that 'the perceiver' is itself perceived, that's what I've been saying for the duration of this convo.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:29:40 GMT
You missed this bit: "There is just experience or experiencing."
There is no actual 'experiencer' behind experiencing....there is no actual perceiver behind perceiving. this is the new knowledge for you. But it is what I have been saying for a long time.
"What" is new knowledge for me? That there is no actual experiencer behind experience? It's what I've been saying all along. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:29:47 GMT
Find out who is looking! That looker is becoming from A to B, B to C, C to D. A is one perception, B is another perception and so on. So the 'who' that is looking, that you say is not conceptual, changes, becomes something different?
If so, then that which you are calling the looker, is itself a perceivable. It's an appearance only.
You are just missing what I am saying.
I re-iterate once again. There is a perceiving going on, that's clear! The thing is, perceiver is attached part of the perception. The question arises as to how then perception moves from A to B, so the answer is, perceiver is becoming from A to B. It CREATES B by becoming B.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:34:18 GMT
Realization/seeing through reveals the idea of a 'who/what' to be false. Nonsense! There is a perceiver within the perception, but the thing is, the perceiver can't be separated from the perception. When Enigma argued with me, he continue to say that perceiver can look into the empty when there is no thought. But I proved him that such perceiver can't exist because perceiver and perception both are one and the same. There is a perceiver but this perceiver can't have independent existence without perception because perceiver is attached part of perception. Can you please offer up the exact quote? I can't see E saying that. And the idea that you "proved" something to E that he had not yet seen, I'm just not buying. Again, an actual quote of the convo where that happened, please.
Ultimately, the perceiver, the experiencer, the looker, seer, doer, imaginer (etc.) are all appearance only. The one who perceives, is itself, a perceivable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:38:49 GMT
Nonsense! There is a perceiver within the perception, but the thing is, the perceiver can't be separated from the perception. When Enigma argued with me, he continue to say that perceiver can look into the empty when there is no thought. But I proved him that such perceiver can't exist because perceiver and perception both are one and the same. There is a perceiver but this perceiver can't have independent existence without perception because perceiver is attached part of perception. Can you please offer up the exact quote? I can't see E saying that. And the idea that you "proved" something to E that he had not yet seen, I'm just not buying. Again, an actual quote of the convo where that happened, please.
Ultimately, the perceiver, the experiencer, the looker, seer, doer, imaginer (etc.) are all appearance only. The one who perceives, is itself, a perceivable.
Enigma says that Consciousness was looking at nothing at deep sleep, don't you know that? I argued with him that such a static perceiver is not possible. He argued with me many days, then I made him understand that that's not possible.
Ask Andrew, he knows how I differ from Enigma for perceiver. 
|
|
