|
|
Post by relinquish on Jan 25, 2013 17:53:11 GMT -8
I agree with most of what she says here. It can become crystal clear that it is not possible for a 'particular thing' to ever really come into being.
I don't agree with, "It's all the reflection of a concept attached to inside". Because 'inside' is also illusory.
I have no idea where she's going with the question though.... Maybe the questions are leading to her famous 4 questions. ;D 1) Is it true that the world doesn't exist, literally?Well, I'm here answering a question. So... 
2) Can I absolutely know that it's true that the world doesn't exist? Well, I'm here answering another question. So... 3) How do I react, what happens when I believe that thought?I will question my own existence. 4) Who would I be without that thought?Someone who doesn't question his own existence.
5) Turnaround: Turn the thought around. Then find at least three specific, genuine examples of how each turnaround is true for you in this situation. The world does exist. Phew!!  The apparently separartely existing one who was apparently here answering questions has no reality of it's own, in the way it is experienced to have. It's actual nature is the totality, which itself not a thing. The same is true of everything. Not one particular thing is real. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 25, 2013 21:36:24 GMT -8
I just read that question (not the moon one, that's just strange) as her asking about our fears? Are you ready to loose everything? (I.e. Non-duality/awakening is a loss not a gain). I'm ready, I'm ready!!  (testing smileys) |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 25, 2013 21:53:50 GMT -8
I just read that question (not the moon one, that's just strange) as her asking about our fears? Are you ready to loose everything? (I.e. Non-duality/awakening is a loss not a gain). I'm ready, I'm ready!! (testing smileys) Oh, tres cool! Hey, Reefs, if you're the official smiley collector, I've long felt that all forums need an animated laughing smiley. The ones we've had to use on these boards looks more like a sh!t-eating grin than a laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 25, 2013 22:00:43 GMT -8
Oh, tres cool!
Hey, Reefs, if you're the official smiley collector, I've long felt that all forums need an animated laughing smiley. The ones we've had to use on these boards looks more like a sh!t-eating grin than a laugh. Yeah, I've already told Enigma that the smileys here could be better. If you have a url with a cool smiley collection then let Enigma know. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 22:17:35 GMT -8
I just read that question (not the moon one, that's just strange) as her asking about our fears? Are you ready to loose everything? (I.e. Non-duality/awakening is a loss not a gain). I'm ready, I'm ready!! (testing smileys) Cool! Okay, I need a url for it, so point me to a website or upload it somewhere and give me the linky. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 25, 2013 22:23:33 GMT -8
Cool! Okay, I need a url for it, so point me to a website or upload it somewhere and give me the linky. Okay, I'll do a little smiley collection.  |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 25, 2013 23:02:27 GMT -8
I'm ready, I'm ready!! (testing smileys) Cool! Okay, I need a url for it, so point me to a website or upload it somewhere and give me the linky. "Linky"  url=http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] <url for laughey smiley. Just put brackets around the whole thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 25, 2013 23:56:15 GMT -8
The apparently separartely existing one who was apparently here answering questions has no reality of it's own, in the way it is experienced to have. It's actual nature is the totality, which itself not a thing.
The same is true of everything. Not one particular thing is real. She said 'doesn't exist, literally' which would mean not even as appearance from my vocabulary standpoint because she didn't say 'has no reality of its own'. But then again, she said 'illusion', which would mean only as appearance from my vocabulary standpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2013 8:30:22 GMT -8
The apparently separartely existing one who was apparently here answering questions has no reality of it's own, in the way it is experienced to have. It's actual nature is the totality, which itself not a thing.
The same is true of everything. Not one particular thing is real. She said 'doesn't exist, literally' which would mean not even as appearance from my vocabulary standpoint because she didn't say 'has no reality of its own'. But then again, she said 'illusion', which would mean only as appearance from my vocabulary standpoint. See, now, in my dictionary, 'reality' has been scratched out, and stuff that comes and goes are appearances only, and only that which never comes and goes can be said to exist in it's own right, and illusion is that which is not what it appears to be. So appearances literally don't exist, but are only illusions if I think they do.  |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jan 26, 2013 12:19:18 GMT -8
She said 'doesn't exist, literally' which would mean not even as appearance from my vocabulary standpoint because she didn't say 'has no reality of its own'. But then again, she said 'illusion', which would mean only as appearance from my vocabulary standpoint. See, now, in my dictionary, 'reality' has been scratched out, and stuff that comes and goes are appearances only, and only that which never comes and goes can be said to exist in it's own right, and illusion is that which is not what it appears to be. So appearances literally don't exist, but are only illusions if I think they do. So you wouldn't say, "appearances are illusory" upon discovering that appearances literally don't exist? Even when this is noticed, appearances still continue to appear, and they are still not real, and are therefore all illusions. Ohh well. I guess we all have different conditioning so different things sound more 'right' than other things to all of us. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2013 19:44:29 GMT -8
See, now, in my dictionary, 'reality' has been scratched out, and stuff that comes and goes are appearances only, and only that which never comes and goes can be said to exist in it's own right, and illusion is that which is not what it appears to be. So appearances literally don't exist, but are only illusions if I think they do. So you wouldn't say, "appearances are illusory" upon discovering that appearances literally don't exist? Even when this is noticed, appearances still continue to appear, and they are still not real, and are therefore all illusions. Ohh well. I guess we all have different conditioning so different things sound more 'right' than other things to all of us. ;D I think the difference is that you've decided that illusion means 'not real'. Appearances (such as objects) appear in every way that we can sense them. They're as real as it gets. |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 26, 2013 21:29:35 GMT -8
So you wouldn't say, "appearances are illusory" upon discovering that appearances literally don't exist? Even when this is noticed, appearances still continue to appear, and they are still not real, and are therefore all illusions. Ohh well. I guess we all have different conditioning so different things sound more 'right' than other things to all of us. ;D I think the difference is that you've decided that illusion means 'not real'. Appearances (such as objects) appear in every way that we can sense them. They're as real as it gets. As you have pointed out in the past, E., an 'illusion' is an illusion of something that is not an illusion. This is why I say that while what most people call 'reality' is an illusion, there is still something that it is an illusion of. This is why I call 'reality' (again, by most peeps' definitions), actuality. Though I think you might agree with that, what you may or may not agree with, is that there is still an 'isness' in question. Though there may not be an 'I' to what I am, I still am. That 'amness', just as the 'isness' of 'what is', if it can be called anything, is what is really reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 26, 2013 22:10:15 GMT -8
See, now, in my dictionary, 'reality' has been scratched out, and stuff that comes and goes are appearances only, and only that which never comes and goes can be said to exist in it's own right, and illusion is that which is not what it appears to be. So appearances literally don't exist, but are only illusions if I think they do. Well, that's a little confusing. The problemo is how one defines 'exist'. To you exist seems to equal existing in its own right. Illusion would be only appearing to exist in its own right and therefore doesn't really exist in its own right. Which means doesn't exist at all? In my dictionary there is 'existing', 'existing in its own right' and 'not existing in its own right'. Although appearance doesn't exist in its own right, it's still there, and therefore does exist. Real would be what exists in its own right. So both real and appearance do exist. But appearances do come and go, the real doesn't come and go, it's always there. And all is the Self because there is only the Self. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 27, 2013 0:17:09 GMT -8
The separation between the perceiver and perceived remove the perceiver completely. Observer is observed as well.
There are three ways we could imagine about the perceiver.
1. Object exist independent of Perceiver. which means whenever I look away, basis doesn't disappear on my behalf,whenever this basis is queried with signal it will respond(turning our perception towards it)
2. As phil says, Perceiver always exist, but appearance come and go.
3.Obeserver is observed as well,Perceiver is perceived as well,This third point has the subtle difference compared to 2 point.
Now investigating above three point, we can come to the strong conclusion. Point 1 and point 2 presupposes that perceiver can exist without perceived. Or focus can exist without something being focused which means when focus is not perceiving into something, it is perceiving into nothing. So how can a focus can focus into nothing? it's not possible, Or we would say focus doesn't exist either. So third point should be the right one. Observer is observed as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 27, 2013 6:48:20 GMT -8
The separation between the perceiver and perceived remove the perceiver completely. Observer is observed as well.
There are three ways we could imagine about the perceiver.
1. Object exist independent of Perceiver. which means whenever I look away, basis doesn't disappear on my behalf,whenever this basis is queried with signal it will respond(turning our perception towards it)
2. As phil says, Perceiver always exist, but appearance come and go.
3.Obeserver is observed as well,Perceiver is perceived as well,This third point has the subtle difference compared to 2 point.
Now investigating above three point, we can come to the strong conclusion. Point 1 and point 2 presupposes that perceiver can exist without perceived. Or focus can exist without something being focused which means when focus is not perceiving into something, it is perceiving into nothing. So how can a focus can focus into nothing? it's not possible, Or we would say focus doesn't exist either. So third point should be the right one. Observer is observed as well. Where is awareness in your equation? |
|
