The mistaking of theory for actuality, ........"as if" ......for ...."what is."

Any object that appears to exist.....comes to appear to exist........as...if...

...by a drawing back into totality all qualities that are not that thing, leaving the appearance of a thing in a location.

Just like the green of a demure leaf wavering in the wind is due to the absorption of all the other colors, except green when light of observation falls.

So when the act of observing creates a drawing back of all attributes except a specific, a specific object with a specific location.........appears to be specified.

Infinite variations in this drawing back.......results in infinite specificities.........lo behold the  world of  people,  stones,  ideations,  interactive relationships whether between cosmic galaxies or  between biological species......et al.

Infinite variations in this drawing back........as the picture in an instant.


 
Wondering what this ‘totality’ is of which you speak, when awareness is that of which it is aware and there is nowhere else for
 any other qualities to be or be withdrawn to.


Typically the term "awareness" is connoted as awareness of X Y,Z.

Here the connotation is dropped.

Awareness-aware-of-itself..........is that very totality which is the instantaneous, infinitely varied drawn back.........flashed picture.

Flashes appearing and disappearing at such rapidity........that a sense of continuum is generated.

To point that the continuum and the very rapid flashing is an .............as if.............the positing of awareness-not-aware--of-itself as the noumenal truth.

Bozo is as good a term for the noumenal truth.
 


 I understand the idea of light that contains invisibly within it, all the colors of the rainbow, and that a thing appears to be green or red, for
 instance because all the others have been absorbed by the surface on  which the light falls… however, this doesn’t seem to be the case
here, where the object is ‘created’ co-existently and in identity with the awareness of it, ie. thought.

It seems to be created, but no creation has occurred. 

It seems to be added on to awareness, but that for which a location cannot be specified ...
...can there be an addition or subtraction.


The viewing of an object is the apparent removal of all that is not the object ......"outside" of the object-location.

Thus a viewing is not possible unless an "outside" gets created ...which immediately births an "inside" .....unless boundaries get created.

Every concept, every idea, every thought involves an inside and outside and thus that which has neither an inside/outside.........nor a not-inside/not-outside.....cannot be brought within thought.

Even this very saying that ......cannot be brought within thought.......creates an inside and outside.




I’m puzzled by this ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ and the boundary thus created. Indeed this constitutes the definition of location, but
dare I say it seems a bit theoretical, - as there is no ‘outside’ to the moment of awareness, nor therefore, to that which awareness may be
  ‘of’.

Indeed.

Which is why all experiences and viewing is an experience...... is "theoretical."

As you look back on that experience, whether after a nano-second or after 10 years...
....you've created an outside of it. 

The boundary is involved in looking back at any event in time that was perceived. 

Once you are aware of an experience, there is a temporal boundary constituting an outside of it.




What isn't theory, what involves neither inside nor outside, is not an experience, nor a thought.

Once you try to say what it is, or take an experience to be it a self-deception is in play.

The mistaking of theory for actuality, .........."as if" ........for ......."what is."




Thus the question arises, is there nothing else or not?



Is the question whether there is nothing else, other than awareness? 

Anything else, other than awareness, arises from and with awareness. 

Once this not-twoness is apperceived, there is neither awareness, nor something else, other than awareness. 

Or, it could be said that  there is a mutual co-arising of all perception.

Which is a referencing.

Referencing is not an issue when apperceived that all referencing involve location......and thus is of thought.

When the apperception that the very referencing as well as the referred to...

... both are  of thought....

....the apperception that there really cannot be anything, there can't be any existence.



Are you suggesting here that thought creates its own location… where in fact there is none, and that they are in fact one and the
same ‘thing’… existing where nothing possibly can…. As existence when there is no such thing?



To the extent that thought can be sensed, it is an object of awareness, or an arising within awareness,
however you'd like to term it.

As awareness is not separate from that of which it's aware, one reaches (without moving) a point (that is not a located point),

the apperception that transcends language, ideation.

So, at this non-locable point, there isn't any really existing thought that could create something or erase anything.


In other words, David Copperfield is God!?

Do you mean, is god a magician making things appear and disappear? 

Wouldn't that god also be an appearance that disappears?

Saying "what doesn't appear or disappear?" is just another way of saying "what is non-concept?" or "what involves no time or duration" or "what is, where no question can arise" or "what is neither creation nor destruction?"


Such questions can be a doorway to examining the issue of  human suffering. 

Otherwise  they are mere fodder for endless debate, supposition,philosophizing.

If the issue of human suffering is resolved, via awareness, then the apperception that there is no division between awareness and human suffering.

One is the suffering one observes.

There is no division of observer from observed.

Hence, there is no time involved.

With no time, no duration, no suffering exists, nor does anything not exist.

Not as a philosophical position - there is no position to be claimed, no one to claim it, no words for it.


On the other hand, to speak of immensity and the unimaginable and  unameable awareness - in the absence of thought - is simply that…
imagination… which is thought…. - which ‘aint got nothing on Nothing! Doesn’t even get close…… not even a mention!

Yes.

There is a limit to the value of verbal cleverness ....

...a limit to the  conceit of knowing the truth, or the conceit of knowing that we don't know

and thinking of that as knowing.