Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 >>Dan: What appears to arise as matter, motion, time and space is contentless. It is we who *describe* things as matter, motion, etc. Pure potentiality and manifestation form a seemless nondual action that occurs instantaneously. Quite paradoxical to language and thought -- potential and manifestation imply time and becoming, yet reverse into timeless nonbeing in a moment. >>ivan: Isn't it a contradiction to state that matriality is just a description and go on hitting a material keyboard with material fingers? Dan: I didn't say it was "just a description" I said it is "we who *describe*" There's a world of difference there. Description is our invention of a world, our being as a world. The keyboard and our material fingers are aspects of the invention which is our manifestation. I: I could agree if you said that things, matter, doesn't need further interpretation by thought, because they are what they are as meaning in form of being. I don't understand the drive to deny the human dimension as real. D: I think these are your own original thoughts - I never said the human dimension has no reality. I: One climbs up the hill, meets emptiness, and looks at the scenario. And the scenario shows the existence of humanity. There is action as a non-fragmented movement, yes. But to exist as pure potentiality, without this what is manifested is a projected state...if i understood you correctly. D: The projection is an imaginative creation. Who is the projector? The non-fragmented movement isn't projection, as it's unsplit, no division of subject and object, no place for thinking about anything. I: Do you doubt materiality? Then you can't type - as in lucid dreams - and may fly. D: You are going in your own direction with these thoughts. Apparently, it is important to you to have something you can define as "material existence" and contrast with, I guess, "immaterial existence." I really can't claim to know exactly how you are making this distinction or what it means to you. Perhaps you would like to elucidate further on this topic. For me, I haven't said I doubt materiality, I said it is we who construct materiality as *description*. I: Matter may exist without description. D: Not if you observe the descriptive function of sensory perception. I: Motion may exist without description. If i didn't recognise matter as a human being must....i would die very soon....hit by a car. D: And where would you be then?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 I: Matter may exist without description. D: Not if you observe the descriptive function of sensory perception. I: So there is matter as sensory perception. An with this is it not implicit that the senses themself are not sensory perception? But all we may perceive is sensory perception according to this model, including the sense organs and all that pertaints to them. If you push this further, you will see that all is perception including the mind where all perception is gathered, again according to the model described. And when all and everything is seen to be perception, one may ask - where is the perceiver?. Nowhere, because it would imediatly turn into perception the moment you could find it!! So all is perception, or all is perceived, without another... and this is the excense of non-duality. From this stand all there is...is, without a perceiver. There is nothing that could "describe" or "interpret" matter. All things are what they are. And emptiness is a word that try to describe the "space" left with the absense of that wich was suposed to perceive. I: Motion may exist without description. If i didn't recognise matter as a human being must....i would die very soon....hit by a car. D: And where would you be then?? I: My body would turn into inanimate matter. And the nature of the "new" manifestation as world is not available to my knowledge. -- Dan: What appears to arise as matter, motion, time and space is contentless. It is we who *describe* things as matter, motion, etc. Pure potentiality and manifestation form a seemless nondual action that occurs instantaneously. Quite paradoxical to language and thought -- potential and manifestation imply time and becoming, yet reverse into timeless nonbeing in a moment. >>ivan: Isn't it a contradiction to state that matriality is just a description and go on hitting a material keyboard with material fingers? Dan: I didn't say it was "just a description" I said it is "we who *describe*" There's a world of difference there. Description is our invention of a world, our being as a world. The keyboard and our material fingers are aspects of the invention which is our manifestation. ivan: I understood correctly. The human world is a description, including all its materiality and else....Some call it the human mind, or the human field, or the human dimension. Matter is solid....unless one is able to change worlds.....but that new world will also be real and all inclusive. I: I could agree if you said that things, matter, doesn't need further interpretation by thought, because they are what they are as meaning in form of being. I don't understand the drive to deny the human dimension as real. D: I think these are your own original thoughts - I never said the human dimension has no reality. ivan: You said: " It is we who *describe* things as matter, motion, etc." Please elaborate it further then.... I: One climbs up the hill, meets emptiness, and looks at the scenario. And the scenario shows the existence of humanity. There is action as a non-fragmented movement, yes. But to exist as pure potentiality, without this what is manifested is a projected state...if i understood you correctly. D: The projection is an imaginative creation. Who is the projector? The non-fragmented movement isn't projection, as it's unsplit, no division of subject and object, no place for thinking about anything. ivan: Yes. I: Do you doubt materiality? Then you can't type - as in lucid dreams - and may fly. D: You are going in your own direction with these thoughts. Apparently, it is important to you to have something you can define as "material existence" and contrast with, I guess, "immaterial existence." I really can't claim to know exactly how you are making this distinction or what it means to you. Perhaps you would like to elucidate further on this topic. For me, I haven't said I doubt materiality, I said it is we who construct materiality as *description*. Ivan: Can you deal with matter under a "diferent" description? This is what i understood from your words...Matter has very few caracteristics, apart from solidity and it's cosequences. If there is not an observer, not a separate awareness from content, no entity.....still materiality goes on, in this particular world of mine. Who is "describing" it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 Ivan: Can you deal with matter under a "diferent" description? This is what i understood from your words...Matter has very few caracteristics, apart from solidity and it's cosequences. If there is not an observer, not a separate awareness from content, no entity.....still materiality goes on, in this particular world of mine. Who is "describing" it? Dan: The apparent solidity of matter doesn't have a separate being apart from mind-body-sensory perception. The separate world of inert matter that goes on and on ... this appears to me to be *your* *description*. The reason there is no separate awareness is because nothing is separable from awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 Ivan: Can you deal with matter under a "diferent" description? This is what i understood from your words...Matter has very few caracteristics, apart from solidity and it's cosequences. If there is not an observer, not a separate awareness from content, no entity.....still materiality goes on, in this particular world of mine. Who is "describing" it? Dan:The apparent solidity of matter doesn't have a separate being apart from mind-body-sensory perception. ivan: The "aparent solidity..." mind, body, sensory perception, are the human field. Can i take your words as meaning that? If "aparent" doesn't bring with it the subtle implicit notion of a "thing" being interpreted....separate of the interpretation. Am i able to comunicate properly with my words? I mean....the fact. D:The separate world of inert matter that goes on and on ... this appears to me to be *your* *description*. ivan: There is not a separate world of inert matter as a description. There is not a separate thing "outside of this" apt to be described. That would imply a separate "something" taken as "real nature" of things apart from this...There is not that wich could describe. The human dimension "is", without description or describer or described. Am i saying BS? D:The reason there is no separate awareness is because nothing is separable from awareness. ivan: Yes. Things are as they are "as awareness"....do we see this? Solidity is awareness. Ilusion is awareness. Thought is awareness. All ready, finished, moving, non-fixed, ever-changing, by themselfs... Nothing is impossible... That inner entity as an ongoing inner observer is ilusion. It is part of the human world also. What? The possibility of taking that entity as real. It is real, then, .....as ilusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 Dan:... The reason there is no separate awareness is because nothing is separable from awareness. ivan: Realy? But there is a mind separate from it's content??!! A separate fixed ongoing mind... You see...our brain can not accept the fact that there is nothing fixed...ongoing. So when it is pointed out that the inner being is a fallacy....it says OK, and projects an oustside entity. First a difused big awareness.....then that´s beaten to death. Then a "mind"....anything. It needs something to get hold.....desperatly........LOL LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 At 03:45 PM 9/27/99 , Ivan wrote: >Dan:... The reason there is no separate awareness >is because nothing is separable from awareness. > >ivan: Realy? But there is a mind separate from it's >content??!! A separate fixed ongoing mind... Ivan, It doesn't seem like Dan is saying there is a mind ... are you saying he does? Or do YOU say there is such a thing?? 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.