Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Will the real Pete stand up? The Pete that somehow apperceives that he is beyond apperception..... ...............that apperceives that there is much more to himself then he can ever know.... Let's see what That Pete looks like....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > >T: Will the real Pete stand up? > > The Pete that somehow apperceives that he is beyond apperception..... > > ..............that apperceives that there is much more to himself then he can ever know.... > > > P:Apperception is perception w/o a sense of perceiver= naked perception. T: Let's see what That Pete looks like....... P:There is no real Pete. The unreal Pete, is.... the only Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > >T: Will the real Pete stand up? > > > > The Pete that somehow apperceives that he is beyond > apperception..... > > > > ..............that apperceives that there is much more to himself > then he can ever know.... > > > > > > > P:Apperception is perception w/o a sense of perceiver= naked > perception. > > T: Let's see what That Pete looks like....... > > P:There is no real Pete. The unreal Pete, is.... the only Pete. Nothing unreal exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > >T: Will the real Pete stand up? > > > > The Pete that somehow apperceives that he is beyond > apperception..... > > > > ..............that apperceives that there is much more to himself > then he can ever know.... > > > > > > > P:Apperception is perception w/o a sense of perceiver= naked > perception. Pete........I could find no reference to the " without a perceiver " part of your definition in any dictionary...........are you changing the meaning words to fit your preconceptions?.....That's OK if you do that....it just makes it a little harder to understand what you are trying to say........ > > T: Let's see what That Pete looks like....... > > P:There is no real Pete. The unreal Pete, is.... the only Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > >T: Will the real Pete stand up? > > > > > > The Pete that somehow apperceives that he is beyond > > apperception..... > > > > > > ..............that apperceives that there is much more to himself > > then he can ever know.... > > > > > > > > > > > P:Apperception is perception w/o a sense of perceiver= naked > > perception. Pete........I could find no reference to the " without a perceiver " part of > your definition in any dictionary...........are you changing the meaning words to > fit your preconceptions?.....That's OK if you do that....it just makes it a > little harder to understand what you are trying to say........ > > Perhaps a new word .....like: nakerception....skinnydipperception.........is in order...... > > > > > T: Let's see what That Pete looks like....... > > > > P:There is no real Pete. The unreal Pete, is.... the only Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 > > > > > P:Apperception is perception w/o a sense of perceiver= naked > > perception. Pete........I could find no reference to the " without a perceiver " part of > your definition in any dictionary...........are you changing the meaning words to > fit your preconceptions?.....That's OK if you do that....it just makes it a > little harder to understand what you are trying to say........ P: Toom, it's a philosophical term, so you have to look in a philosophical dictionaire. It was a term introduced by Leibniz as the inner state reflectively aware of itself. It was redefined by Ramesh as perception without a sense of a perceiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > >T: Will the real Pete stand up? > > > > > > The Pete that somehow apperceives that he is beyond > > apperception..... > > > > > > ..............that apperceives that there is much more to himself > > then he can ever know.... > > > > > > > > > > > P:Apperception is perception w/o a sense of perceiver= naked > > perception. > > > > T: Let's see what That Pete looks like....... > > > > P:There is no real Pete. The unreal Pete, is.... the only Pete. > > > Nothing unreal exists. P: Yes it does. It exists as a misinterpretation of existence. Yes it does 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.