Greg/ivan/materiality

[Guest guest]

Dan: Not if you observe the descriptive function of sensory perception.

 

Greg: Again i wanted to clarify that. So materiality is just

a sensory perception?

 

Dan: Materiality is a word. What does the word refer to? It refers

to whatever category you want to make that is defined as

"materiality" and whatever you want to contrast this first

category with which you might define as "immaterial reality" I suppose.

Sensory perception is, in my mind, the basis for the determination

of a "material reality" which generally is taken as having substance.

How would you think of something as having substance if it couldn't

be sensed? The bigger question to me is nondual awareness. Does

nondual awareness become more clear once someone has a "correct"

definition of materiality? In my mind, there might be many "correct"

definitions of materiality, and nondual awareness is not disrupted

for me in any way by that situation. :-)

[Guest guest]

>Greg: Again i wanted to clarify that. So materiality is just

>a sensory perception?

 

Dan,

 

I didn't ask that question - I think Ivan did...

 

--Greg

 

>Dan: Materiality is a word. What does the word refer to? It refers

> to whatever category you want to make that is defined as

> "materiality" and whatever you want to contrast this first

> category with which you might define as "immaterial reality" I suppose.

> Sensory perception is, in my mind, the basis for the determination

> of a "material reality" which generally is taken as having substance.

> How would you think of something as having substance if it couldn't

> be sensed? The bigger question to me is nondual awareness. Does

> nondual awareness become more clear once someone has a "correct"

>definition of materiality? In my mind, there might be many "correct"

> definitions of materiality, and nondual awareness is not disrupted

> for me in any way by that situation. :-)