I’d like to ask for some clarification. When Uma said, "exactly what it is," was she referring to the thing itself, or was she describing the sensation or experience it creates? I’ve been thinking about this a lot since our conversation, and it’s left me a bit confused. On one hand, it could mean that the thing is exactly as it is, without any filters or interpretations. On the other hand, it might mean that the sensation or feeling it evokes is precisely what it is, implying that our perception of it is what defines it.
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this concept. If we take "exactly what it is" literally, it sounds like we’re talking about the thing in its purest form, untouched by our subjective experiences. But then, how can we truly know something without experiencing it through our senses or thoughts? The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether the essence of something lies in its objective existence or in how we perceive and feel it.
Personally, I’ve found myself leaning toward the idea that the sensation or experience might be "exactly what it is," because that’s how we interact with and understand the world. But at the same time, I can’t shake the feeling that there’s a deeper truth to the thing itself, independent of how we perceive it. This duality has been on my mind a lot lately, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
