Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:50:28 GMT -5
That's what I mean when I say you don't understand context. Two seemingly contradictory statements can be true, because they are true in different contexts. Normally one will transcend the other, but that doesn't make the smaller context a 'lesser' or 'more invalid' truth. We can't help but care about the physical experience, our bodies are designed to care!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:50:42 GMT -5
so therefore creation doesn't arise and is THEN perceived. The perceiving and the creating are the same (for Enigma). I don't know where he would situation Consciousness (and Awareness) in that. That's what that division doesn't exist, but it's difficult to bring it in words. I am creating and perceiving simultaneously. It is perhaps difficult to bring into words without use of the word 'context'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 4:53:26 GMT -5
That's what I mean when I say you don't understand context. Two seemingly contradictory statements can be true, because they are true in different contexts. Normally one will transcend the other, but that doesn't make the smaller context a 'lesser' or 'more invalid' truth. We can't help but care about the physical experience, our bodies are designed to care! Outside of this forum, you will spend most of your day believing relative truths. Brushing your teeth, eating food, drinking fluids, talking to others, programming the computer. It all demands that you believe relative truths, that contradict the absolute truth. Denying that you believe relative truths is a form of escape from the present moment, because it is a denial of the world that you believe in (relatively). At some point on the spiritual path, we have to be okay with speaking in seemingly contradictory terms. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 4:58:07 GMT -5
Outside of this forum, you will spend most of your day believing relative truths. Brushing your teeth, eating food, drinking fluids, talking to others, programming the computer. It all demands that you believe relative truths, that contradict the absolute truth. Denying that you believe relative truths is a form of escape from the present moment, because it is a denial of the world that you believe in (relatively). At some point on the spiritual path, we have to be okay with speaking in seemingly contradictory terms. ok |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 5:04:27 GMT -5
No divisions... Mind devides. All is Consciousness except our fabricated minds which are split-consciousness. Those that don't have a mind are free of such Ignorance that can be speculated.  Yes, it's a conceptual split. Even the idea of 'Consciousness' is an intellectual construction. As we go about our day, most folks are not likely to be thinking about 'Consciousness'...we're more likely to be thinking about what to have for lunch. Agreed, A. Learning to open oneself to the world is important. Just did kin-hin, walk-a-bout and it was a buzz. It is so great to be simple and not complex or out of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 5:08:20 GMT -5
That's what that division doesn't exist, but it's difficult to bring it in words. I am creating and perceiving simultaneously. It is perhaps difficult to bring into words without use of the word 'context'. Actually it's difficult to talk, but I know this to be true. I am creating and also I am perceiving,but I don't have the control where creation takes place, this seems to be contradictory but it's not. I can say my inner level of consciousness creates it but still that too is a contradictory because that inner level is not separate! One whole consciousness creates and perceives! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 5:08:48 GMT -5
Andrew, it has been found that during childhood-molestations cases, children dettach and zoom off the pain far too emmence to bare. yes. The biological function of escaping in that way serves a valid purpose I Am currently writing about this phenonemon. 1844 WA. Here the Brits wrapped whaling-chain about a 14yo Irish lad, who had the body weight of a 9yo so as too please the Gov over Easter, 'for a quick-kill.' No-one had hung a child so Light!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 5:12:44 GMT -5
Outside of this forum, you will spend most of your day believing relative truths. Brushing your teeth, eating food, drinking fluids, talking to others, programming the computer. It all demands that you believe relative truths, that contradict the absolute truth. Denying that you believe relative truths is a form of escape from the present moment, because it is a denial of the world that you believe in (relatively). At some point on the spiritual path, we have to be okay with speaking in seemingly contradictory terms. Usually it is during the Home coming, having gotten there and lost all.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2016 6:54:25 GMT -5
The way to roll with the context flip is to admit that there's an eye (without arguing about the nature whether it's real or not) but to point out that it's not the eye that sees.  It's all just conceptual play and word games. I don't understand where is the difficulty for them. Satch got confused with by saying 'eye in the appearance is perceiving' and everything else started from there. The potential mental spin on topics with existential questions at the root is endless. You can walk away .. or you can double-down-dooooofus and ask "well, hey, what if you surgically removed an eye and put it in a petri dish, what would it see then??  ". Lolz named that philosopher guy who calls himself a material realist and was invited to speak at TED, and even a guy like that knows better. Sometimes it seems, TMT doesn't go far enough, and if peeps don't have the mental gasoline to make it out to the edge of the wastelands, they stall halfway there. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2016 6:57:39 GMT -5
But even when it is understood fully that Consciousness is is behind it all, gives rise to it all, IS it all, isn't there(without losing that knowing) a re-engagement with the experience of 'eyes seeing'? In the moment where you make an appt. with your eye dr. to get your glasses prescription checked, for example, you are engaging with the experience of eyes seeing. If you lived solely from the vantage point of 'no eyes are involved', you'd be struggling mentally every time you put your glasses on. I'm going to be writing a post explaining about context real soon. Be patient.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 6:59:25 GMT -5
I don't understand where is the difficulty for them. Satch got confused with by saying 'eye in the appearance is perceiving' and everything else started from there. The potential mental spin on topics with existential questions at the root is endless. You can walk away .. or you can double-down-dooooofus and ask "well, hey, what if you surgically removed an eye and put it in a petri dish, what would it see then?? ". Lolz named that philosopher guy who calls himself a material realist and was invited to speak at TED, and even a guy like that knows better. Sometimes it seems, TMT doesn't go far enough, and if peeps don't have the mental gasoline to make it out to the edge of the wastelands, they stall halfway there. yes, It seems to be endlessly going on,but he and his companions continue to miss the point which I have been trying to make. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2016 7:05:25 GMT -5
So eye in the appearance is perceiving? Yes. I wouldn't phrase it like that, I would speak of it in terms of the relative, but it's still clear to me. Now, the question is...can you acknowledge the relative context? I don't think you can. I think your model is basically the brown bear model in which all questions are answered by recourse to the absolute context. Oh, and Laughter always supports that model so that is another clue. You have an overactive imagination but it's products are so mundane. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2016 7:24:59 GMT -5
Yes of course. How can one exist without the other? How can the dualistic word exist without someone to engage with it. How can the welcomer of the 'world of duality' not exist without the 'world of duality'? Well it can't. We could say that they are mutually dependant or that they arise simultaneously. So, if someone wants to be a welcomer of the world of duality, a world of duality exists. Bringing that all the way back to the desires of that someone, and the appearance of, the universe fulfilling all wishes. Existence seems to have done just fine without peeps for billions of years prior. Any seeker who hasn't contemplated whether existence needs peeps as much as peeps need existence to the point where it's no longer a question is at the first step of a long and strange trip. ... it's also just gopals question about the Moon in a different form. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2016 7:28:58 GMT -5
I've been quite careful not to mock, though that doesn't mean that I haven't. I can't prove to you that I am experiencing different perceptions to you, but it seems so obvious to me that we are perceiving differently (or experiencing different perceptions), that I have to say that you have made a mistake. I haven't made any mistake. Everything appears, Is it clear? If everything appear, then how could you see something through your physical eye? Because If everything exist in appearance, your eye too exist in perception. And yes, you weren't imagining it. Doooofus guy is who he is.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2016 7:29:51 GMT -5
yes. The biological function of escaping in that way serves a valid purpose I Am currently writing about this phenonemon. 1844 WA. Here the Brits wrapped whaling-chain about a 14yo Irish lad, who had the body weight of a 9yo so as too please the Gov over Easter, 'for a quick-kill.' No-one had hung a child so Light! ::warning - contains conspiracy:: The technique of identity splitting through intense pain and suffering is also a government/military practice that enables them to turn young people into soldiers (of the more undercover kind). |
|
It's all just conceptual play and word games.
