Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 >Bill:It seems that Appearance is. Appearance appears to appear.Apparently, at least. Does that mean that Appearance is>Real? No. Only that it appears to be.>If Appearance is not Real, then there is no necessityfor a "who" to whom Appearance appears. Not a Real "who",>at any rate.>So my answer to your question is that appearance itselfdoes not require anything more than an *apparent who* towhom it appears, if that. If consciousness is an apparentreflection against an apparent surface then what is that>apparent surface than the "who" you are asking about?>Misc Jottings:>Consciousness and Appearance seem to be the same:>can't have one without the other.>Conciousness, Appearance, Maya, Illusion seem to be>the same.>Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept>in that it has the least baggage.>There can be Appearance without a "sense of who".Perhaps the loss of a "sense of a who" is the realunburdening. For it seems (appears) that with thedissolution of a "sense of who" Appearance is>liberated, unconstrained.>Whereupon the Dance begins.>And Rumi howls at the Moon.>-Bill P: Hey Bill! That rabbit hole did you good. I'm impressed. Yes, if all is appearance, then we only appear to be, and nothing can be said about that to which appearances appear. It neither is, nor is not. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.