|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:39:40 GMT
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.
You see a 'doer' a something that is perceiving inherent in perception itself. There is no such thing. And perception isn't actually moving, movement is also an appearance only. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:41:03 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.
If you ask me where it happened, here is the Quote, After this conversation, I think Enigma has changed his view point. It has happened very long back on ST.
Yes, appearances come and go, and 'something' is aware of that coming and going. I don't understand why your question arises for you. What's the problem with awareness knowing what appears within awareness? How can awareness not know? The question should be, how can an appearance know it is appearing? How can an appearance watch itself come and go? Let's assume you are right, there is an unchanging background, now all appearances come and goes, awareness is the witness of this movement of appearances. Awareness knows while it look at the perception,that's what you are saying, but look at this situation more closely, If awareness knows when it looks at the perception, then knowing happens in awareness as the result of looking at the appearance,right? If so, that knowing itself is the happening of perception,Is it not? So remove that "looking at the perception" part(because this cause is not necessary), let that be knowing alone, So looking at the perception is not necessary, Do you understand me now? This is what I meant when I say 'perceiving alone exist', 'knowing alone exist'. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:48:00 GMT
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.
If you ask me where it happened, here is the Quote, After this conversation, I think Enigma has changed his view point. It has happened very long back on ST.
Let's assume you are right, there is an unchanging background, now all appearances come and goes, awareness is the witness of this movement of appearances. Awareness knows while it look at the perception,that's what you are saying, but look at this situation more closely, If awareness knows when it looks at the perception, then knowing happens in awareness as the result of looking at the appearance,right? If so, that knowing itself is the happening of perception,Is it not? So remove that "looking at the perception" part(because this cause is not necessary), let that be knowing alone, So looking at the perception is not necessary, Do you understand me now? This is what I meant when I say 'perceiving alone exist', 'knowing alone exist'. E was not saying what you think he was. That is very different from what you said he said.
Most importantly, do you see the term 'perceiver' in that quote anywhere? The bolded should be what you are focusing upon. When he uses the term "awareness" he is pointing...he is not referencing a some-thing/someone/who/what...not an object nor a concept that does stuff.
There's a problem in trying to figure out the 'process' of experience with mind. Only a realization/seeing through will do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:52:28 GMT
If you ask me where it happened, here is the Quote, After this conversation, I think Enigma has changed his view point. It has happened very long back on ST.
E was not saying what you think he was. That is very different from what you said he said.
Most importantly, do you see the term 'perceiver' in that quote anywhere? The bolded should be what you are focusing upon. When he uses the term "awareness" he is pointing...he is not referencing a some-thing/someone/who/what...not an object nor a concept that does stuff.
There's a problem in trying to figure out the 'process' of experience with mind. Only a realization/seeing through will do.
He is saying something called 'unchanging background' and he is saying 'something is aware', did you miss it accidentally? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 4:56:49 GMT
E was not saying what you think he was. That is very different from what you said he said.
Most importantly, do you see the term 'perceiver' in that quote anywhere? The bolded should be what you are focusing upon. When he uses the term "awareness" he is pointing...he is not referencing a some-thing/someone/who/what...not an object nor a concept that does stuff.
There's a problem in trying to figure out the 'process' of experience with mind. Only a realization/seeing through will do.
He is saying something called 'unchanging background' and he is saying 'something is aware', did you miss it accidentally? Yes.....he is indicating/pointing to 'unchanging background.' And YOU are talking about an A that then moves to B, that then move to C...right? So clearly, the 'perceiver/looker' YOU are talking about, changes. That right there is a monumental difference.
And when he used the term something, he did this: 'something.' There's a reason for that. Awareness is not a 'thing/someone/who/what.' It's entirely non-conceptual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 4:59:22 GMT
He is saying something called 'unchanging background' and he is saying 'something is aware', did you miss it accidentally? Yes.....he is indicating/pointing to 'unchanging background.' And YOU are talking about an A that then moves to B, that then move to C...right? So clearly, the 'perceiver/looker' YOU are talking about, changes. That right there is a monumental difference.
And when he used the term something, he did this: 'something.' There's a reason for that. Awareness is not a 'thing/someone/who/what.' It's entirely non-conceptual.
He is saying there is an unchanging background and changing is happening against that. He is placing one as unchanging and another one as changing. Do you see that? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 30, 2021 5:09:49 GMT
Yes.....he is indicating/pointing to 'unchanging background.' And YOU are talking about an A that then moves to B, that then move to C...right? So clearly, the 'perceiver/looker' YOU are talking about, changes. That right there is a monumental difference.
And when he used the term something, he did this: 'something.' There's a reason for that. Awareness is not a 'thing/someone/who/what.' It's entirely non-conceptual.
He is saying there is an unchanging background and changing is happening against that. He is placing one as unchanging and another one as changing. Do you see that? Yes, of course. That which appears does so within/to that unchanging background. But that unchanging background is not a who/what....'unchanging background' is a pointer only to that which ultimately defies capture by words...defies conceptualization....defies grasp by mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2021 5:23:40 GMT
He is saying there is an unchanging background and changing is happening against that. He is placing one as unchanging and another one as changing. Do you see that? Yes, of course. That which appears does so within/to that unchanging background. But that unchanging background is not a who/what....'unchanging background' is a pointer only to that which ultimately defies capture by words...defies conceptualization....defies grasp by mind. Andrew can you please jump in and explain to Figgles?
|
|
