|
|
Post by Gopal on May 13, 2013 1:12:36 GMT -8
There are three ways you could assume the existence of perceiver.
1.Perceiver exist independent of object, in this case, when perceiver changes his focus, object doesn't disappear.
2.Everything appears to the perceiver.In this case perceiver remains unchanged, but appearance come and go. so, object doesn't exist by itself but perceiver remains unchanged though there is nothing to be perceived
3.Both perceiver and perceived are one,Both can't be separated.
Now which one is correct?
I consider the third one is correct, because If perceiver were to exist independent of object, he would have to perceive nothing when nothing is to be perceived, but it is not only impossible but also removes the perceiver as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 13, 2013 10:19:15 GMT -8
There are three ways you could assume the existence of perceiver. 1.Perceiver exist independent of object, in this case, when perceiver changes his focus, object doesn't disappear. 2.Everything appears to the perceiver.In this case perceiver remains unchanged, but appearance come and go. so, object doesn't exist by itself but perceiver remains unchanged though there is nothing to be perceived 3.Both perceiver and perceived are one,Both can't be separated. Now which one is correct? I consider the third one is correct, because If perceiver were to exist independent of object, he would have to perceive nothing when nothing is to be perceived, but it is not only impossible but also removes the perceiver as well. I'd say that 3 is correct too, but not by any logic. Why can't a perceiver perceive nothing when there is nothing to perceive? Is it that he loses his title because he's not perceiving anything, and then we can't call him a perceiver? If so, then call him by a different name that doesn't lead to such confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 13, 2013 19:40:28 GMT -8
Nothing is not a thought,isn't it? If so, how perceiving is possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 13, 2013 23:03:17 GMT -8
Nothing is not a thought,isn't it? If so, how perceiving is possible? You posit a perceiver, define it, and apply logic to your definition to disprove it. Logic is not the way. It's based on assumptions derived from your experience, which itself is unproven. |
|
|
|
Post by Anja on Jul 4, 2016 9:18:51 GMT -8
It doesn't matter at all who and/or what the perceiver is and if what is perceived is seperate from the perceiver or not.
What matters (only) is: What the perceiver makes with the information that is gained by what was/is perceived.
Do you understand that, Gopal?
For example: When you see a kid drowning, you don't inquire into wheather or not that is seperate from you, I hope. You jump into the water and save it. THAT is what perception and the information that is gained by perceiving is all about.
Intellectual diarrhoe is a curable disease, pal. And the cure is: Right action! And the sanskrit term for that is: Karma yoga.
|
|
