|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 13:37:18 GMT -5
You've stated clearly and on numerous occasions that you don't read links provided to you. Are you being selective about which links you're willing to read? I'd make an exception for enigma because I known just how much effort it would take for him to do it  If I were someone as rigorously logical and argumentative as you appear to be, I would appreciate someone taking the time to point out certain things to see if they were indeed indicative of something erroneous. Perhaps, at that point, with a little openness and honesty, something could then be let go of or seen in greater clarity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 13:38:14 GMT -5
I can't know whether others are real or figment, that's right. But when you say '(actually seeing that nothing really can be known for certain)', you are bringing two context, one in which moon is mere appearance, another one is moon is received from outside, So you can't know which one is true, So you are saying that it can't be known for certain,right? But the problem here is, the second context is born out of speculation, that means outer is moon is speculated from inner moon. So there is no two context in which as you say we can't know for certain. There is only one context. No. I'm not talking about either the moon being 'a mere' anything, or being 'received' or an outside vs. inside. Where did you read that in? Im simply saying that there's a point where experience is just taken at face value. If I see a moon, I see a moon. Nothing more needs to be said. Then why do you say 'actually seeing that nothing really can be known for certain'? |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 17, 2016 13:39:23 GMT -5
Alf! Where you been?
I haven't been following much along, but why the hell are you writing about wet dreams I fear to ask...
It's been such a long while for me, I had forgotten all about it... till Yogurt's post. He's so stimulating. Had a wonderful active time away from the Gaol, got alot done. I am trying to keep physical; I noticed when I do nothing my fleshy-bits seize-up. Here's hoping your boat is afloat and you have created a new Sail. Send me a pic please...(in colour)  Staying in motion is important. Hard to hit a moving target  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 13:40:26 GMT -5
How can appearance have human body? Let's say in your nightly dreams, you dream about Andrew..is there a physical body that pertains to 'Andrew' in the dream? No, there are just neurons firing. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 13:42:29 GMT -5
Relatively, contexts are hierarchical, but absolutely, they are not. Within the absolute context, it's not that one context is a little bit more true than other...no matter what context it is, it's not True. The absolute transcends the relative by definition, but this creates a paradox. It means that they are equal. It means that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness. It means the relative is valid as the absolute. It means that it's ALL Divine, it's ALL Sacred, it's ALL God. There is not not one aspect that is more or less God than any other aspect.  Looks like brown bear is only reading one side of the story.  |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 17, 2016 13:44:41 GMT -5
Ok. When we were talking about the attraction dynamic and you made the statement, "No because they are too busy working for me", I was questioning the implications of the statement. The implications are clearly faulty. Whether or not they are logical implications from your statement would depend on what you mean by "no because they are too busy working for me". Appearance of other individuals happens according to my individual, So that tells me that they are working for me. This can happen at two condition 1) God has fallen into his own dream(but in this case, I must be the only individual who is real) 2) A mysterious force is doing this Job for it's own purpose. If other individuals are real and if mysterious force is absent, then their aspect of consciousness try as possible as it can to flourish their life. It would never work for me. Ok on the two conditions I'm pretty sure my question was premised on the possibility of more than one condition, the possibility of you (as appearance) working for them and vice versa. That's why I didn't get your answer.
As far as the mysterious force, I would say there are unconscious forces and there is consciousness, and that consciousness doesn't have a purpose, which makes the job a lot less complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 13:45:33 GMT -5
I wonder if anyone here actually clicks on those links? I read them and do learn a little more about the character of some of the characters that populate this board. I also notice it as an act of love, but which is received and judged as something else by a few said characters. That is interesting. Thanks for answering. I find what you have to say interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 13:50:33 GMT -5
Did you read what I said? It doesn't go missing, but is seen more clearly. Don't confuse "over enthusiasm" for the admonition of "abiding". As such, the suffering "experienced" is minimized when seen in the light of clarity. Yeah I read it but disagreed. I'm not saying it has to go missing just that it can do. yeah, & even if it doesn't go missing completely (as in full fledged brownbear-ism), it still is often (sometimes very subtly) subjugated. Seeing where/when that's happening is important if clarity and freedom from all stories, is the goal. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 13:55:45 GMT -5
Yeah I read it but disagreed. I'm not saying it has to go missing just that it can do. Oh, I didn't read that you had disagreed. It "can do", as in "be enough", or "can go missing"? It can go missing, but not always. Sometimes, no problem. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 17, 2016 13:57:43 GMT -5
I read them and do learn a little more about the character of some of the characters that populate this board. I also notice it as an act of love, but which is received and judged as something else by a few said characters. That is interesting. Thanks for answering. I find what you have to say interesting. There a lot of bouncing balls in my life these days so, when I read his posts and the links, I can sense that Laffy's skills as a programmer enable that neural network to keep an eye on several bouncing balls in incredible detail. There's a wee bit of envy there, considering the number of international-multicultural students/teachers/admin I need to interact with daily, while being focused on learning objectives.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 13:59:16 GMT -5
Well, as i see it, the realization doesn't bring with it an ongoing experience of being more conscious of what is actually going on, what ensues is a dropping of the sense of being separate. So its more of a subtraction than an addition in this sense. Aside from that, life goes on. I know what you mean, but i look at it a bit differently. So, you are saying that, based on the realization that you have had, the sense of being separate is dropped, but personhood goes on? To continue (assuming that's what you mean), you are saying that there is no difference in degree between one realizing "no separation" and "no self"? By person hood, I assume you mean the ability to respond if someone speaks to Andrew....? If so, yes that continues. Andrew also has desires and preferences...that has continued too. I see a slight difference between a no self and no separation realization but they are very closely linked. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 17, 2016 14:00:01 GMT -5
No. I'm not talking about either the moon being 'a mere' anything, or being 'received' or an outside vs. inside. Where did you read that in? Im simply saying that there's a point where experience is just taken at face value. If I see a moon, I see a moon. Nothing more needs to be said. Then why do you say 'actually seeing that nothing really can be known for certain'? I was talking about the falling away of needing to know things for certain about 'this', but I don't see how that involves seeing the moon as 'a mere appearance' or an inside, outside that is received or not. It's really about seeing that all there ever really is, is THIS, right here, right now, arising in this present moment. There is no inner or outer to that immediacy. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 14:03:24 GMT -5
I'd make an exception for enigma because I known just how much effort it would take for him to do it If I were someone as rigorously logical and argumentative as you appear to be, I would appreciate someone taking the time to point out certain things to see if they were indeed indicative of something erroneous. Perhaps, at that point, with a little openness and honesty, something could then be let go of or seen in greater clarity. I don't like dredging up the past, even just two minutes ago. For me, what was said and done has no bearing on now and it actually requires a level of effort to go there. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2016 14:04:39 GMT -5
In nightly dream, everything appears, Everybody knows this, but you say to me that you are perceiving through your physical eye in your nightly dream, Said that, what can I say to you? To be clear, what I am saying is that dream Andrew perceives with help of sensory organs. Awake Andrew also perceives with help of sensory organs. Deeply asleep Andrew...well it's debatable whether he is perceiving or not. But you didn't answer the question (though you did answer it before). I will assume that your answer is consistent and therefore there is a body that pertains to Andrew in the dream You may have gotten to my mirror example by now, but I will add to it somewhat. Let's call a dream, a reflection in a mirror. If a mirror is reflecting a body, there is no body in the mirror. Likewise, there are no bodies in a dream. Simple, easy to see the truth of the matter. What we have to determine is how the reflection arises (and in the earlier post we (I) related the reflection in the mirror to an appearance). Andrew (and myself) say there is an actual physical body, in a ~real~ world, standing in front of the mirror. Gopal says no, the reflection is being ~conjured up~ by Consciousness alone, reflection does not prove there is an actual body in front of the mirror. We cannot know absolutely who is right, Gopal or andrew. Gopal goes to far in saying there is no external world (and therefore no physical bodies), he cannot know. So, Gopal is not in error (or would not be in error) in saying all we can know is there is an appearance (in the mirror). But Gopal is in error in maintaining absolutely there is no external world (and no physical bodies). Gopal doesn't know that (therefore in actuality it is merely an opinion). So andrew has a predilection, yes, external world. Gopal has a predilection, no, no external world. One can never convince the other who is right. But if physical bodies exist, dreams arise from neural activity, IOW, do have a physical basis. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 14:06:41 GMT -5
Let's say in your nightly dreams, you dream about Andrew..is there a physical body that pertains to 'Andrew' in the dream? No, there are just neurons firing. Yes that's true in the non dream reality, but in the dream reality there are characters featuring. |
|
