|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 15:13:51 GMT -5
Yes, I know we don't mean it in the same way. I'm saying he can't know that (and neither can you). Just because we can't see the physical in any way other than subjectively doesn't prove it's not there in some way. Yes, it's odd to say the least, that folks believe 'they' exist, whatever that means, as an expression or localization of Consciouness, but can't state the same for other expressions or localizations of Consciousness. Somehow they become non-existent appearances. It's conceptual folly at it's best. The conceptual folly is thinking you know something about appearances, that are not associated with you, other than that they are appearing. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 15:17:44 GMT -5
It means like Gopal you say there is no exterior world (and this context thingy is just BS). There is no exterior world, and it's critical to understand context. I think you are taking this dream analogy thingy way to seriously, it's an analogy, our world is not a dream world, All This is not Consciousness dreaming. We don't wake up in a dream, we wake up from a dream (and into the real world). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 15:19:30 GMT -5
We can never know other point of perception, Enigma agree with me here. How does he marry the idea of multiple viewpoints with the idea that there might only be one viewpoint? Multiple viewpoints can happen, and almost certainly does, but it is an assumption. (Not one I lose much sleep over.)  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 15:24:01 GMT -5
What in the world is a relatively objective external world? (You cannot know what I cannot know) You mean he cannot know ineffable, which you cannot know? I'm saying he can't know what I do or don't know without filtering it through his own knowing/not-knowing. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 15:27:52 GMT -5
How does he marry the idea of multiple viewpoints with the idea that there might only be one viewpoint? He says multiple view point but only one consciousness is looking through all the view point. This is just a speculation he had before he meet Gopal, but after he met Gopal, Gopal has collapsed Enigmas speculation.None of the speculation can stand in front of Gopal, Because Gopal is the personalized form of certainity Wow! Gopal is Truth incarnate!  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 15:32:12 GMT -5
Peeps have to draw from past experience for their dream material, don't they? Blind from birth, no visual dreams. Duh. If there are no eyes no body no brain no exterior world, anyway, then why is not-seeing in dreams a problem for consciousness? Who said it was a problem? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 15:36:00 GMT -5
IOW, you believe formless and form can actually be separated? The formless cannot die. You consider life in a different context than I do, so my response will not be relevant for you. Human consciousness arises from the "marriage" of the formless and form, IOW, has aspects of both. We have the capacity, potential, of movement either toward the formless (life) or form (death). Death would be the final separation. By default, if we do not choose life, we have chosen death. The point of choosing is what we say "I" to, that is, what we I-dentify with, practically, not theoretically, not in imagination. So that's a 'yes'? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 15:39:18 GMT -5
SOCI is always now. The universe is always now. Following up on the previous post, entropy gives an arrow to time and makes time relevant. Again, the being of humans arises out of both the formless and form. Movement toward the formless negates entropy. Movement to form and human consciousness is subject to entropy, IOW, eventual death. Time means potential is not forever, there is a time-limit. Yes, the formless is not subject to time, yes, SOCI is always now. Form is subject to time. Time is an illusion. We don't have to talk about it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 15:40:14 GMT -5
It's a misconceived question. Consciousness is not personal. What is a human being? Individuation is not personal? The human is personal, of course. I guess we could say personalized Consciousness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 15:41:37 GMT -5
It means: You don't....you don't spit into the wind...you don't...and you don't mess around with Jim". (Compliments of Jim Croce). There is relative appearance. There is relative experience. There is no external world. There is no inside/outside. This is why there is nothing separate from Consciousness. No-separation is a radical thing. It doesn't mean physical matter is somehow infused with consciousness or that everything is connected in various ways. It means everything IS Consciousness. There is only Consciousness. You are THAT! (For Andrew) Does this way of seeing things, or theorising about them,have any practical value?If yes, what is it? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 15:42:36 GMT -5
If you can't find an answer after 50 years, the problem may be in the question. So you know everything? There is nothing (else) you wish to know? I didn't say that. I said "If you can't find an answer after 50 years, the problem may be in the question." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 16:01:27 GMT -5
I presume you are googling German history...and will see I was closer to truth that you. (Hitler was head of the Nazi party, which came to power in a National election, March 1933, with a coalition of the other mentioned party). I am not googling anything, I follows the writings of Tim'O Neil, he has the excellent knowledge in history of Jews,Romans and many. So one of his writings he has written this. i do not have to google to know that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Almost half of Germany saw him as some kind of Saviour. As Stardustpilgrim says, he made a coalition government and then got voted into absolute power by his parliament. Every kid learns that here in school. Holland was one of the nations overrun by his armies. What many people do not know, is that he also was an occult medium. There was a statue (a bust) of a guy called Dietrich Eckhart in the Reichstag, the ONLY statue there. He was Hitler´s mentor, Historians forget this because they do not understand black magic.But Eckart helped Hitler get in touch with a demon, who spoke through him during his hypnotising speeches, and who told him to attack France, even though his armies werent ready.The Demon knew they would win...because such spirits can look beyond present time. When he attacked Russia, a stupid military mistake, his generals did not want him to do, he got fooled by an Indian occultist called Sri Aurobindo, who appeared to him disguised as this demon, and convinced him to attack Russia. Now he had to fight on two fronts, which he could not keep up. So, basically Aurobindo won WW2 for us. An Indian, you can be proud. WW2 ended on his 73rd birthday, and India got independence on his 75th birthday.(kicking out the Brits was his ealier,first, priority.When nobody believed it, he already knew it would happen, he talked about this with his followers) Now THAT is occult power ... India is famous for such people. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 16:29:17 GMT -5
Then you don't understand context. Everything is God, Cheese, Consciousness or whatever word association one prefers will refer to that specific God context . Casting aside one context for another even though one supposedly entertains the notion that everything is God is highlighting that such a peep doesn't actually relate God being all there is, being every thought / expression there is .. I understand context fine, I understand context relating to God just fine .. You said "every context refers to God". Lots of contexts don't have anything to do with God. God is not part of the content of those contexts and you can't make it part of them because you figure you know betterer. Maybe you mean, the context of God Donald Trumps all other contexts? You can talk/discuss in a context that you know is not the actual truth. It's okay. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 16:32:02 GMT -5
How does he marry the idea of multiple viewpoints with the idea that there might only be one viewpoint? Multiple viewpoints can happen, and almost certainly does, but it is an assumption. (Not one I lose much sleep over.) If Consciousness is the expression, I don't get how the expressions could not be a viewpoint, but I'm not going to lose sleep over that. I'm more likely to lose sleep if you locate viewpoint/s at the level of 'the undivided'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 17:03:42 GMT -5
Then you'll be pleased to know I do see, and always have seen, the differences between dream and waking state. That well maybe the case butt when speaking to you about the differences you were not promoting the differences .. You were collaborating with the G man regarding the similarities of that which appears in the dream state and the waking state to make a point . That's why I spent an age suggesting repeatedly 'why did you marry your wife' amongst other things if you are only second guessing that she is real . It's kinda easy to spot the differences isn't it regarding what is real and what is illusory or imagined, so for the life of me I can't understand the wall of defence put up with some peeps that couldn't seemingly get the point myself and others were making .. Such a wall of defence attained produced a response each time that dodged certain questions put forward relating to the differences between the waking world and the dream state . Perhaps it would of been beneficial for the sake of the many conversations had on this subject for you to emphasise the differences rather than just a one sided approach highlighting the similarities .. It kinda puts you in a position regarding which side of the fence you sit on if you only stick to one side of it . It's simple; A point was being made that related to the similarities between the waking and dream state. Instead of acknowledging the similarity and the point, you and others launched into a campaign to talk about the differences, as though that had anything to do with the point being made. Andy just did something similar to Gopal, and so Gopal felt he wasn't being understood. Nobody denied differences, but you got on the warpath and you weren't going to come home without somebody's scalp. |
|
