The Sexes

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Although form alters based on how we interact with body, still body and brain do not really exist except as imaginations, I wouldn't equate them with being necessary for consciousness at all and it seems clear that consciousness continues despite any particular form being dissolved.

Just because an experience is consistent or lasts a long time, it doesn't alter the fact that transient objects of consciousness are only objects of consciousness.

[Dan Rowden]

Although form alters based on how we interact with body, still body and brain do not really exist except as imaginations, I wouldn't equate them with being necessary for consciousness at all and it seems clear that consciousness continues despite any particular form being dissolved.

I'd very much like you to cite some evidence for that last contention.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Have a dream, the form of your body has then completely disappeared, it is not to be seen appearing in any way at that time. Is the body necessary for those imaginations?

For example, if I'm running during an imagination, do I have legs there? Clearly not. Yet I'm running.

If I see with my eyes closed, is there light there? Clearly not, yet I'm seeing.

What else exists besides experience of the mind? Would you say experience of the mind is dependent on the body?

[Leyla Shen]

Bloody hell.

[Leyla Shen]

Look, MOUNTAIN!

[Cahoot]

Classic arrogance. If the mighty I does not perceive the mountain or conceive the mountain, then the mountain does not exist until the instant before impact, and then the mighty I squeaks, oh shit.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

A name for an object of consciousness. Clearly the object of consciousness is not in existence until it is actually appearing in consciousness, things only exist as far as they are seen of the mind, despite whatever consistency you might perceive.

[Dan Rowden]

Have a dream,

What is a dream?

[Cahoot]

A name for an object of consciousness. Clearly the object of consciousness is not in existence until it is actually appearing in consciousness, things only exist as far as they are seen of the mind, despite whatever consistency you might perceive.

A name for an object of consciousness. Clearly the object of consciousness is apprehended according to the limitations of sensory and conceptual capacity.

[Dan Rowden]

What is an object?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Clearly the object of consciousness is apprehended according to the limitations of sensory and conceptual capacity.

I guess we disagree. Just curious, but how could you ever know such a thing? To say that the object's existence goes beyond the sensory and conceptual experience?

[Cahoot]

Clearly the object of consciousness is apprehended according to the limitations of sensory and conceptual capacity.

I guess we disagree. Just curious, but how could you ever know such a thing? To say that the object's existence goes beyond the sensory and conceptual experience?

Be careful about altering the wording according to your agenda, unless you're just playing some kind of game.

That is: "I guess we disagree. Just curious, but how could you ever know such a thing? To say that apprehension of the object of consciousness is bound by the limitations of sensory and conceptual capacity."

The answer is to look through a microscope or a telescope. Make sure the focus is properly adjusted.

[Cahoot]

What is an object?

That which is perceived by the senses and labeled by the conceptual, limited to apprehension by both.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

That's not an answer, that's a reference to another sensory experience.

[Cahoot]

That's not an answer, that's a reference to another sensory experience.

Ah, I see. You want a particular thing to be named as an object.

If you really want to get a conceptual bead on "object", and I have my doubts about that based on past complaints about things getting too complicated, an excellent reference other than your own capacity for logical inference (since my inference appears to be beyond your capacity) is Understanding the Mind, The Nature and Power of the Mind, by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. There are many references to "object," all of them cross-referenced, the first of which is:

"In general, all phenomena, including minds, are objects because they are objects of knowledge, but some objects, namely expressive sounds, persons, and minds, are also object-possessors. Besides these three, all other phenomena are only objects and not object-possessors."

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I'm not really sure as to what Gyatso was getting at, I would probably have to read the whole thing before I could discuss it.

Though since we are coming to odds in terms of language, I'd like to clarify as much as possible,

More simply put:
Is it an existing thing being sensed vs only the sensation existing? You can guess where I am, for us to continue I'd need to know where you are, or how your view differs from these options?

[Cahoot]

The sensed mountain is as real and existent as your body, though of greater mass, so the two attempting to occupy the same time/space coordinates during an event of sufficient velocity differential relative to one another will result in a brief, though not recommended, sensation.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

As real and existent as my body, agreed, but you still didn't answer.

[Cahoot]

Yes, I did.

Good luck with your seeking to make truth fit into the limitations of your perceptual and conceptual sandbox that is built on your dualistic foundation of "vs."

[SeekerOfWisdom]

No you didn't, because you are unable to answer whether the things appearing in consciousness exist externally to consciousness or despite conscious experience. Already you have avoided it three times.

[Cahoot]

"things appearing in consciousness exist externally to consciousness or despite conscious experience."

Good grief.

lol.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

btw, those aren't options, that's the same question, are you under the impression that the world exists outside of/externally to/despite the experiences of consciousness?

It's very straight forward, nothing about it is confusing or hard to understand, 4 times now.


For example, if one said, you either have one dollar or a different amount, would they not be correct no matter what?


You either think that consciousness makes up all that is and nothing exists save for what is seen of the mind, or you have a different opinion that isn't this one, no matter what, in which case we are at a complete disagreement.

[Cahoot]

I am that in which consciousness is experienced as the world.

Your limitations are the source of your own complete disagreement.

Now I want a straight answer here: What comes after four?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Well you actually just agreed with me, was giving an answer so hard?


Five.

[Cahoot]

Now I want a straight answer here: What comes after four?

Five

Too bad. You lose. The straight answer is ... ?