David:
It should be clear from the analysis I have presented that the concept of the Totality does not really refer to the three-dimensional physical universe imagined by most people to objectively exist. Rather, it refers to the totality of all appearances experienced by consciousness. Included in this larger totality is indeed the three-dimensional physical universe, but it is only one of countless other appearances. There is not a single appearance which can lay claim to being ultimate or objective reality. Whether it be an appearance of the physical universe itself, or an appearance of an inner mystical realm, each appearance exists only in the moment of our perceiving it and nowhere else. As soon as it ceases being perceived, it ceases to exist. Each appearance is but a charade of the moment and none of them ever reflect the true nature of Reality.
The Totality, then, is entirely formless. Or if you like, its form embraces the infinity of appearances. Or even more accurately, its form is whatever happens to be perceived in any given moment. In the moment that I conclude that the Totality is formless, or the infinity of appearances, it too is nothing more than a momentary perception on my part. To project anything more onto this perception, or to cling to it as though it were the final truth, would be to fall into delusion. In the end, the Totality is simply what it is in any given moment - end of story.
We can now go a step further and affirm that objective reality does indeed exist - in the moment of our perception of it. If, in any given moment, the observable universe appears to be objectively real, then that is exactly what it is. And if in the next moment, it no longer appears to be objectively real, then that too is exactly what it is. The observable universe is entirely a product of the moment and lacks any kind of form or existence outside of this.
Beautifully written, penetrating insight and this is truth.
The challenge is - you will contradict everything you have said in these three paragraphs further down in your post.
The same is true of what is "out there" beyond the mind, and indeed of the mind itself. Both the mind and what lies beyond the mind are only real to the degree that they exist as an appearance. Understanding this point is important because it enables one to transcend to an even higher perspective, taking one beyond consciousness, as it were, to the very threshold of enlightenment itself. One is now but a finger snap away from opening the wisdom eye and seeing directly into the secret of creation.
You keep asserting that the mind is an appearence. I have asked you, where does it appear?
Are you ever going to answer?
B1:
1- How can the mind perceiving this "larger set" known as the ALL be a subset of its own perception?
2- Could you tell us where the perceptual bubble ends?
3- Who is perceiving another entity as a set intersection?
4- How can a perception discover truth?
David:
You have to learn to go beyond this whole perceiver/perception duality. Such a duality might be useful for practical purposes, but it breaks down when you look into the matter more deeply.
That is only what I have been saying for like eight years now. Role reversal?
It is not I that keeps affirming we are only our thoughts/perceptions - its you. Now you want to assert there is no perceiver.
David said in Chptr. 6:
each appearance exists only in the moment of our perceiving it and nowhere else
You even gave an example of how you could not perceive an object(the monitor) and that implied "perceiver/perception duality." This is cognative dissonance at its apex.
Can you not see the contradiction? Your entire structure is built on finite perception and -not/finite perception all at the same time.
What we call the "perceiver" is really just an abstraction created by thought. It is a momentary add-on that the mind creates whenever it starts labeling its experiences as “perceptions" and attempts to analyze them in a metaphysical manner.
What you are leaving out of the equation, is regardless we label a "perceiver" (you spelled it out in the three paragraphs from Chpt. 6) perceptions are experienced. It does not matter whether we label a "perceiver" or not - perceptions are.
This is just verbal gymnastics to avoid the hard problem. Eliminate the "perceiver" and you still result in perception and so - you have avoided the question again all the while maintaining your position that there is a perceiver.
People easily fool themselves by the term “consciousness", and by the phrase “everyone is conscious”. It creates the illusion that consciousness is identically the same in everyone, that it is a kind of detached, unchanging, intangible field which is distinct from perceptions, that everyone possesses this unchanging, intangible field in equal measure. In reality, consciousness is continually changing as each experience arises. It differs moment-by-moment within the same individual, and it differs from individual to individual.
You contradicted what you said above:
It should be clear from the analysis I have presented that the concept of the Totality does not really refer to the three-dimensional physical universe imagined by most people to objectively exist. Rather, it refers to the totality of all appearances experienced by consciousness.
And:
There is not a single appearance which can lay claim to being ultimate or objective reality. Whether it be an appearance of the physical universe itself, or an appearance of an inner mystical realm, each appearance exists only in the moment of our perceiving it and nowhere else.
-- snipped
Now you want the universe to witch gears and be concrete again. Which is it?
Consciousness does not change - it does not grow - it does not become more. You are confusing memory/thought with consciousness, which is the source of thought. It has always been the same looking at the changing world. Your experience and memory have expanded - the perceiver has remained the same.
Come up hither David Quinn.You have penetrated into reality further than 99 % of the human race and just one more small step.
It is a bit like what happens when we switch on a light. It is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that “light" is an unchanging phenomenon which is the same wherever it is present, but in reality no two light bulbs are ever the same, no two photons are ever the same, and no two streams of photons (flowing from the lightbulb into the room) are ever the same. Every instance of light flowing into a room is unique to that moment. In the same way, every instance of consciousness is different and unique unto itself.
Certainly the experience of reality and thought is in a state of flux. The perception of it remains. The only constant in the universe is change. The only constant in the realm of perception is perception itself without change.
These are the two components of reality.
Just as there is no such thing as an detached, unchanging David Quinn who goes through life as a static object, likewise there is no such thing as a detached, unchanging consciousness.
Who or what has always perceived David going through life?
What is seeing the universe or the body or thought/memory - what is perceiving? Who or what is thinking?
And yet the fact remains that my universe will always be beyond your consciousness, and your universe will always be beyond mine. No amount of flowery discourse in pseudo-physics will ever change that fact.
Your consciousness is limited. Mine too. Why deny the obvious?
You are not speaking to me? I am not in your universe? where am I then?
It is obvious you just wrote a post to me, am I not in your universe?
Enlightenment involves seeing into the true nature of everything, which is the same everywhere. This is a fantastic spiritual attainment and can be considered a form of omniscience, but it doesn’t involve becoming aware of every single detail of everything that exists.
Exactly.
In that case, why do you make that a case test question?
In other words, while I already understand the fundamental nature of your monitor, it is unlikely that I will ever be able to come over to your house and observe your monitor directly. Not that it matters to my enlightenment either way.
Once you know one thing - you know everything.
