|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 17:05:18 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about anything of 'Pilgrim's. Then what in blazes are you talking about, or am I supposed to guess? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 17:07:10 GMT -5
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. If time is an illusion everything is an illusion. Time is subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 17:09:01 GMT -5
You asked the meaning of Pilgrim's and he said 'Stardustpilgrim'. Whether you are talking about him or not is another story. It was Enigma who said "Pilgrim's in between" in his response to me. What I said before that had nothing to do with anything of 'Pilgrim's or anything 'Pilgrim said. I didn't even know what "Pilgrim" meant. You interjected into my discussion with Pilgrim and asked about his 'in between' comment.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 17:37:08 GMT -5
The direct seeing, and the experience, are the same. One doesn't have to conceptualize 'I exist' for one to know he exists. One doesn't have to conceptualize appearances to experience things appearing. He's actually projected his experience of feeling like there's an external world onto a hypothetical baby. Aces.  Yeah, same thing he does with aminals and suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 17:45:28 GMT -5
Just pointing out WIBIGO. I could find things to argue with tenka about, but we are aligned on what I consider to the most important issues For example, the issue of whether what is prior to appearances/expressions is divided or not, is an important one as I see it. I cannot get on board with gopal's model because it means that consciousness could be divided. So I would rather debate with him and laughter on that subject, than argue the fine points of something with tenka. Well, that's pretty much what I was pointing out, but fair enough. I don't believe Gopal accepts the idea of a divided Consciousness (nor do I), so you don't really need an ally there. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 17:56:48 GMT -5
The direct seeing, and the experience, are the same. One doesn't have to conceptualize 'I exist' for one to know he exists. One doesn't have to conceptualize appearances to experience things appearing. No, gopal does not equate a direct seeing with an experience. I agree that that one doesn't have to conceptualize appearances to experience things appearing (the baby is a good example of that). The baby experiences a world out there before conceptualizing one intellectually. I didn't say anything about Gopal. I said the direct seeing and the experience are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 22, 2016 18:34:40 GMT -5
Right. Experience is subjective by definition so it implies an actualised universe rather than an objectifiable one. Besides, it's characteristic of change renders it unidentifiable, but definable according to context. So "experiencing the movement of appearance" is used to point out that it is not an "experience" of an objective world. That's why those "convoluted" words are used. "experiencing the movement of appearance"... pffft. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 18:41:12 GMT -5
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. So who is it that thinks they 'are' a library of knowing and what they don't know? |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Sept 22, 2016 18:54:25 GMT -5
So "experiencing the movement of appearance" is used to point out that it is not an "experience" of an objective world. That's why those "convoluted" words are used. "experiencing the movement of appearance"... pffft.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 19:30:05 GMT -5
Mind loves order and requires that it's experience make sense. That's why it does. It also loves mystery and problem solving, which is why there is mystery and problems. Some folks love miracles, which is why there are miracles. Some 30 year olds have memories from 50 years ago, just not Gopal. Try Tenka, you might have better luck. you talking about past life memories? yeah I can well believe that is possible. But it does seem odd, if the human being has absolutely nothing at all to do with what is perceived, why the perceptions and memories do seem to pertain to the life of each human being. A coincidence perhaps, and one that pertains to the appearance of all 8 billion of them. Creation is formed from within creation, so the experience of sentient beings forms the raw material for the world. When I say "Mind loves order and requires that it's experience make sense", I'm saying Consciousness creates through mind. Creation and perception are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 19:32:44 GMT -5
The Dufus questions, akchuly. The 'dufus' thing is basically just a way to avoid answering tricky questions innit. Playing Dufus is a way to sneer at ideas one doesn't like. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 19:42:34 GMT -5
That's what I'm saying. I also say nothing in the dream of physicality causes something else in the dream to happen. The reason is the same; it's an appearance in Consciousness. The liver isn't there until you see it just as the moon isn't there until you see it, because it's appearing in Consciousness. So you know a liver when you see it. How do you know it is a liver? Does the liver have tissue? And is it made of cells? Does it connect to anything else in the body? If not, what is the function of the liver? Does it have a function or is it just completely ornamental i.e just something to look at that has no function? You're trying to be a tricky Dufus. Just ask your questions with a little sincerity and I might try to answer them. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 19:44:39 GMT -5
Mind loves order and requires that it's experience make sense. That's why it does. It also loves mystery and problem solving, which is why there is mystery and problems. Some folks love miracles, which is why there are miracles. Some 30 year olds have memories from 50 years ago, just not Gopal. Try Tenka, you might have better luck. What? Some peeps claim to have past life memories. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 19:49:17 GMT -5
 Waiting for Enigma's answer to your question. I'm guessing about a 25 per cent chance that the response will involve the dufus guy. More than that! |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 22, 2016 21:50:35 GMT -5
Some peeps claim to have past life memories. That can also be a great example of spirit cloaking. The person remembers the life of the spirit and mistakes it for a past life, because it's not actually the person remembering but the spirit attached to the person using its mind. Ironically these types of regressions can dislodge spirits, but the regressions themselves often involve bypassing the causal emotion which allows the cloak. So while a problem behavior pattern might be altered (and be mistaken for 'healed' by a past life regression therapist), the same dynamic can just re-assert itself in new form if the causal emotion isn't addressed. With a new spirit of course, and a new paycheck for the therapist. Pretty sweet gig. |
|
Waiting for Enigma's answer to your question. 