|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 16, 2016 1:16:14 GMT -5
Yes the statement is a fact as you say. It cannot be refuted. This is the key. Deal only with what you know and experience right now in the moment and forget about idle speculation. Saying that of course leaves me open to Laughter pulling out a bunch of posts from the archive demonstrating my mental gymnastics, but hey, what the heck. As for Enigma. He is being - how shall we say - contrary in his support for the Ruler of the Universe. The point is that of course this is how Gopal lives every day. So he does not live day to day by his own ~philosophy~ of how life works. Something is amiss here. Why have a view of how life works if you can't live by it?Zackley .. And this is why I have the utmost respect for my mum . 40 years of meditation, yoga day and night, purifying, fasting, realizations, yada, yada yada .. She has lived by example, she still does .. Peeps that speak of theories and live by their opposites just doesn't cut the mustard .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:34:12 GMT -5
Yes It matters a lot. I am giving the logical reason of why outer world doesn't exist to pilgrims, but in truth, I know it doesn't exist because universe is self-organizing. yes exactly, Once we know Consciousness creates, we can know that seeing through illusion has the power to collapses the illusion as well. I don't think anybody else knows this truth here(Seeing through the illusion collapses the illusion), Do you think anybody else knows this truth from this forum? I saw this cartoon once, a guy is driving down a one-way street, and he was meeting traffic, everyone else was going the other way, and he said to himself, "Why is everyone going the wrong way"? I understand perfectly what you are saying in an absolute context, I could even agree with you in an absolute context, however, there is a simpler explanation concerning how the world we live in actually operates, meaning, we operate under the rules of a relative context. I went to school with a guy who played tennis. A tennis ball hit him precisely in the eye. The eye changed colors and he went blind in that eye. Consciousness, in an absolute context, didn't alter his imaginary eye in his imaginary body. In a ~real~ relative context, a speeding tennis ball in an actual physical universe caused him to lose eyesight in that one eye. Now, I know this will not break you down and cause you to change your mind, but I need a real excuse to never read a single post of yours again and never post to you again. Your response will give me that reason. Have a wonderful life Gopal. Okay, That's great. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:35:31 GMT -5
How come consciousness wakes up locally? There are two possibilities which can happen 1)If I am the only one individual who is real, then God has fallen into his own dream 2)If everybody else is real, then there is a mysterious force who is fully aware does this Job(Orchestrating Job). I'm saying consciousness does not wake up locally. Falling asleep, on the other hand, happens locally.
If the attractive dynamic you are talking about is relative to Gopal (the appearance), the idea that others cannot be in the same type of dynamic implies that consciousness wakes up locally, and only locally.
Meaning the implication is #1. Although I don't really like the idea of 'real' individuals if we're talking about waking up.
To sum up one last time, you were talking about attraction within the context of seeing through the illusion from a place of clarity. You mentioned others cannot be in the same dynamic you are in, because the other appearances are too busy working for you. This implies that consciousness is only seeing through the illusion of separation through Gopal.
 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:36:15 GMT -5
That's an illusion I am pointing out. If everything is appearing which includes your eye as well, then how could you see through your eye? If everything is appearing, then aren't you seeing the appearance directly(not via anything)? You ignored what he said. Here's a question to add to the collection. Gopa is an appearance, right? The feeling of happiness is an appearance, right? So who or what feels happy? I feel happy and I feel unhappy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:37:05 GMT -5
All discussion is not about freedom from suffering. And also I believe you are not qualified to talk about freedom from suffering because you are not free yet. In your model there is only conciousness and appearances....so can consciousness be freed from suffering or the appearance? I |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:39:10 GMT -5
I understand perfectly. Gopal understands this also, but Gopal believes there are no trees, period (nothing called a tree in an exterior world, nothing which we give the name tree to, for him there isn't even an exterior world) there are only appearances of trees. Gopal has only one context, period. I'm trying to point out actually the correctness of your position. However....I think I'm really done this time with Gopal....... Gopal doesn't understand that even though "no one has ever seen a tree" this doesn't mean there are no trees. I can see why Gopal might say what he says, but I can't see that it makes any difference at all. In Zen we regard the physical world as "real as a rock," but there is also an understanding that the field of our being is beyond intellectual grasp. A ZM would refuse to discuss anything theoretical with Gopal. She'd probably bop him on the head with her Zen stick, and dismiss his talk of appearances completely. But let's assume Gopal is 100% correct. So what? It wouldn't make any difference in the way we live life. Almost all of us interact with the physical world as if it's as real as a rock. ATST, some of us have read enough about "miracles" and supposedly "impossible" or non-local events that we appreciate that there is an insubstantial aspect to even the most rock-solid "stuff." Parasambhava supposedly grabbed the hand of a doubting monk and thrust it through a rock wall. Jesus and Kabir supposedly performed a wide range of miracles, and many of us have had lesser woo-woo experiences that strongly challenge the idea of anything "solid" or "fixed." Innumerable sages have made statements similar to, "All there is is consciousness." That's only going to be a problem for people who are strongly attached to an objective physical reality. If there's no attachment to ideas, then there's no problem as I see it. No, It surely makes a difference, it would puts us into creator mode. If we haven't seen this, then we would remain in perceiving mode. The statement "Seeing through illusion changes the experience" can only be true If we are in creator mode. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:41:21 GMT -5
You are taking from individual view point. I am talking about direct seeing, I am saying people who enters into my life due to certain illusion I am in and when I reach to certain clarity those individuals would move away, more than that these individual are stamped with certain characteristic to perform that role. This proves that they have made for that and attracted to me at right time. That's nonsense. For your attention, Once again, I never believe other people are figments, I believe I can't know whether other people are figments or real. So do appearances have characteristics? Is the appearance that is a human being characterized by having brains, hearts and sensory organs? Nobody has brains,hearts or sensory organs. If other one is real, then they are also consciousness perceiving from another view point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:41:56 GMT -5
Where am I assuming? I am consciousness and I am perceiving everything, It happens both in my dream and in my reality. Aren't I? My dream and my reality? Who/what are you referring to there? My(Gopal) dream and My(Gopal) Reality, Is that clear now? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:42:36 GMT -5
So do appearances have characteristics? Is the appearance that is a human being characterized by having brains, hearts and sensory organs? He will say no. Yeah. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:44:12 GMT -5
Yes the statement is a fact as you say. It cannot be refuted. This is the key. Deal only with what you know and experience right now in the moment and forget about idle speculation. Saying that of course leaves me open to Laughter pulling out a bunch of posts from the archive demonstrating my mental gymnastics, but hey, what the heck. As for Enigma. He is being - how shall we say - contrary in his support for the Ruler of the Universe. The point is that of course this is how Gopal lives every day. So he does not live day to day by his own ~philosophy~ of how life works. Something is amiss here. Why have a view of how life works if you can't live by it? I live and when I reach clarity that reorganize the universe, that would put me into the creator mode, that's the reason I am interested in the area of whether outer world exist or not, whether other individual is real or not. But in the case of you, you haven't met any such realization, So this is all irritating you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:45:48 GMT -5
The point is that of course this is how Gopal lives every day. So he does not live day to day by his own ~philosophy~ of how life works. Something is amiss here. Why have a view of how life works if you can't live by it? I have been irritated in this conversation at times, and I think that's partly because gopal and me sometimes have very normal conversations off the forum. I enjoy talking to him and he posts some pretty cool (normal) stuff on Facebook. I understand fully that different situations demand different kinds of conversation, but when he says what he says here...I'm like....wtf? There seems to be an incongruence in his choices that bothers me personally because we do have a bit of a personal relationship (though based on what he says here, I dont know how he sees it). I guess this was written more for gopal than you. I have been very cool here as well but you continue to fail to understand what I say that irritates you, So I am not responsible for that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:46:24 GMT -5
Do you see that you didn't answer the simple question I asked and threw in the old ignorance thing again. You just posted on Facebook a table tennis video. Is it true that you thought it was a good demonstration of table tennis? Is it true that you like posting on Facebook? Areyou assuming the existence of an Andrew that sleeps at night and has a highly dream? In the context of the dream, dream andrew is seeing through physical eyes, yes. He is not seeing through his feet. Could you answer the question I asked in the previous message please. You're playing fast and loose with contexts too. In the context of dreams, there is nothing physical. Yes, exactly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:47:48 GMT -5
But what if one knows one sees better knowing the experience is just an appearance? By appearance do you mean a perceptual falsity? What ? You don't what is the meaning of appearance even after the years of staying in STF? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:49:04 GMT -5
Because the eyes aren't really separate from the body. Take them out and they don't function. It's just a common-sense observation about object boundaries that suggests something uncommon about them, and it's been the subject of ridicule here for the past two weeks. I find that interesting.  I find it both ridiculous and interesting that the same thing is said over and over again for 2 weeks - and will probably be repeated for 2 months hahaha. I never care anything goes further or not, argument always moves me according to my rollercoaster. Infact the more appropriate word would be My rollercoaster takes the expression in the form of argument. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:50:17 GMT -5
Exactly. Pilgrims wouldn't understand even if I slightly move away from the context. He wouldn't even imagine why I write that way, He immediately tends to conclude that I am wrong. It's just that I don't ever recall you writing in such a matter. This is the conversation andrew is having with Gopal... why do you write one way on facebook and and another way here. Gopal can post when and where he wishes. If you don't like it then just don't read his posts. |
|
