How will this conversation assist you in attaining liberation?norman wrote:You'll have to ask yourself whether this conversation is valuable or not. I'm merely attempting to sort out the implicit arguments in the reasoning to begin with.
This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Anybody else out there understand what is being said here?Any apparant reflection you refer to doesn't exist, since the sensed/perceived image IN itself cannot appear as an object OF itself.
What in hells name does this mean? Is a mirage an object of visual perception? Of course it is. Is it a reflection of an (apparently) existing object? Of course it is. Does it have an (apparent) existence of its own? Of course it does. Can you see a mirage and see the object of the mirage, in some cases, yes. So can you have two images of the same appearance (visual object). Yes.Otherwise you have two images of the same Appearance.
An object does not need to exist as a visual sensory object and a body sensory object at the same time. Take a rainbow for example (or the abovementioned example of a mirage).
No it's not, it is part of the process of cognizing. A visual object does not stop existing just because you are not sensing and cognizing it.The reason for not being able to See any reflection is due to the fact that the act of seeing, or other sensing, is part of the image cognized.