WokeBloke

Why couldn't seeing consists of two essential components. Seer and seen. For example your shoes are seen but they are not the seer. So it seems like there must be a distinction between seen and seen that is based in reality.

Quite frankly I think the notion that if its not in your experience it doesn't exist is false.

I would say no since there needs to be a subject/hearer for there to be a sound.

Does anybody share the view that the ground of being itself is unfixed? Essentially the very nature of existence is change. Or the idea that there is no unchanging reality. Changeless = Death Changing = Life

God is uncreated and its existence is thus necessary. God has no choice but to be God. Since God is all there is God only cares about God and is thus, by definition, selfish.

and who/what knows that it is happening?

so are you saying there is no subject? If you say there is no experiencer then you have to admit that you are saying no one is experiencing. If no one is experiencing then there is simply nothing happening. But this is in opposition to the fact that something is happening.

That one is that one. Only that one is that one haha. And only that one knows that one. No idea what its made of but I guess I could say it is made of itself. And from a oneness perspective everybody is that one.

I would say none of those things are subjects which makes them incomparable to humans. If a tree could see then wouldn't it be a seer?

Same one that sees in waking life. How fake eyes are created at night is totally unknown to me.

Your current body is your current body. The other bodies are your past and future bodies. Disclaimer: I don't know if this is true.

And I regard you and I as one changing/evolving and undying being.

Curious to hear some takes on this. In this context let's let having mean that something belongs to something/someone. If I asked does a phone have a phone then you would probably say no. If I asked does a phone have a camera then you would probably say yes. Similarly if I asked if a hand has a hand then you would probably say no. Whereas if I asked if a hand has fingers then you would probably say yes. So do bodies have bodies? I guess logical thinking would say no. So what has a body then if not the body? Or perhaps nothing has a body. Perhaps the body (God) simply is all there is.

I would say it does change. Consciousness changes form and form changes consciousness. I don't regard you and I as unchanging fixed beings.

Ah okay and this changes! But there are also other bodies which are also changing.

what does that refer to?

Are you saying something like the universe is my body and my physical body is part of this universal body? As the universe I am responsible for all parts?

So what is your take on the view that we are not our bodies? Currently viewing it as delusion.

Yes I am the moving bodies.

And my body is you.

Yet there are bodies. I propose that you do not have a body. You are the bodies.

ignorance in my opinion.

Firstly what is a desire... Its best to look at its components: I want (fill in the blank) 1. It requires a subject (referred to as I) ex. trash cans and pencil sharpeners don't have desires because they aren't subjects -> For those interested a subject (in my view) is defined as someone (animal, human) that is alive and experiencing 2. It requires a thing that is wanted -> Object of desire (money, car, house) -> Nonphysical things (better state of being, new relationship, reduction of pain) 3. Has a reason behind it -> Either conscious or unconscious reason. Ex. I want to eat! The reason is because I am hungry. So every want has these 3 components. I should note that desires do not need to be put into words to be desires. Ex. if you scratch your nose that is because there was an uncomfortable sensation that you wanted to get rid of but most people don't think to themselves "I want to scratch my nose". the action was still based on desire. Now the claim is that all human (and animal) actions originate from desire. In other words NO action is ever preformed that is not desire. Does anybody disagree?

I might suggest that emotions, logic, fear and anything else are all aspects of a person's condition that influence what their desire will be. So like all of these are ingredients in the soup of desire. ultimately though these coalesce into a desire (either verbal or non verbal) that the subject either acts on or doesn't act on. Ex. hunger doesn't need to be acted on. Thank you for your post because it makes me think about this more deeply. Would you say all of those things you listed could be regarded as ingredients that go into what desires are formed? You could also add things like external conditions, body condition to the list of ingredients in the desire soup.

who said it?